From ville.skytta at iki.fi Sun Oct 1 17:12:49 2006 From: ville.skytta at iki.fi (Ville =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Skytt=E4?=) Date: Sun, 01 Oct 2006 20:12:49 +0300 Subject: Remaining FE6 cleanups Message-ID: <1159722769.28809.48.camel@viper.local> The remaining FE6 package repository cleanups are planned for Wednesday 4th Oct evening (UTC +3): - Removal of orphaned packages in the repository, if any. - Removal of packages with broken dependencies. Sometime at end of this week, hopefully before CVS is branched for FC-6, the CVS devel branch of orphaned packages will be cleaned up and marked with dead.package. There's a bunch of newly orphaned packages as of today which haven't been removed from the repository nor are in Extras/OrphanedPackages page in Wiki yet. Given that this happened so close to when things were supposed to be ready for FC6 and that their removal would break quite a few packages, some alternatives to just removing them are being discussed - more info about that later. But these packages are looking for a new maintainer anyway (effectively since two weeks ago): aspell-mi buildbot deskbar-applet doctorj duplicity fltk freeglut fyre gdk-pixbuf gnofract4d gnome-password-generator gnome-themes-extras gurlchecker leafpad libedit lostirc lua pam_mount pam_mysql pam_script perl-Chart perl-Net-SCP perl-Net-SSH perl-String-ShellQuote perl-XML-XQL prozilla putty python-cvstoys screem From j.w.r.degoede at hhs.nl Sun Oct 1 18:41:18 2006 From: j.w.r.degoede at hhs.nl (Hans de Goede) Date: Sun, 01 Oct 2006 20:41:18 +0200 Subject: Remaining FE6 cleanups In-Reply-To: <1159722769.28809.48.camel@viper.local> References: <1159722769.28809.48.camel@viper.local> Message-ID: <45200BCE.7010904@hhs.nl> Ville Skytt? wrote: > The remaining FE6 package repository cleanups are planned for Wednesday > 4th Oct evening (UTC +3): > > - Removal of orphaned packages in the repository, if any. > > - Removal of packages with broken dependencies. > > Sometime at end of this week, hopefully before CVS is branched for FC-6, > the CVS devel branch of orphaned packages will be cleaned up and marked > with dead.package. > > There's a bunch of newly orphaned packages as of today which haven't > been removed from the repository nor are in Extras/OrphanedPackages page > in Wiki yet. Given that this happened so close to when things were > supposed to be ready for FC6 and that their removal would break quite a > few packages, some alternatives to just removing them are being > discussed - more info about that later. But these packages are looking > for a new maintainer anyway (effectively since two weeks ago): > > aspell-mi > buildbot > deskbar-applet > doctorj > duplicity > fltk > freeglut > fyre > gdk-pixbuf > gnofract4d > gnome-password-generator > gnome-themes-extras > gurlchecker > leafpad > libedit > lostirc > lua > pam_mount > pam_mysql > pam_script > perl-Chart > perl-Net-SCP > perl-Net-SSH > perl-String-ShellQuote > perl-XML-XQL > prozilla > putty > python-cvstoys > screem > > I would like to volunteer myself hereby as maintainer for freeglut and lua as those are both used by quite a few games and I think one or more of my 70 + packages depend on them. So I'll wait till tomorrow morning (gmt + 1) for any other interested parties to come forward and if no one has yelled hard by then I'll modify owners.list to take ownership. I see they were alreayd rebuild by Michael before he orphaned them, and neither of them has nay open bugs, so it looks like modifying owners.list is all thats needed, or am I missing something? Regards, Hans From michael at knox.net.nz Sun Oct 1 18:39:34 2006 From: michael at knox.net.nz (Michael J. Knox) Date: Mon, 02 Oct 2006 07:39:34 +1300 Subject: Remaining FE6 cleanups In-Reply-To: <45200BCE.7010904@hhs.nl> References: <1159722769.28809.48.camel@viper.local> <45200BCE.7010904@hhs.nl> Message-ID: <45200B66.80901@knox.net.nz> Hans de Goede wrote: > I see they were alreayd rebuild by Michael before he orphaned them, and > neither of them has nay open bugs, so it looks like modifying > owners.list is all thats needed, or am I missing something? > > That is correct. All my packages were rebuilt, with one exception. gdk-pixbuf. This needs some autotools love to build in mock. Michael From lmacken at redhat.com Sun Oct 1 22:06:56 2006 From: lmacken at redhat.com (Luke Macken) Date: Sun, 1 Oct 2006 18:06:56 -0400 Subject: Remaining FE6 cleanups In-Reply-To: <1159722769.28809.48.camel@viper.local> References: <1159722769.28809.48.camel@viper.local> Message-ID: <20061001220655.GC11568@tomservo.nc.rr.com> On Sun, Oct 01, 2006 at 08:12:49PM +0300, Ville Skytt? wrote: [...] > deskbar-applet I happen to find this tool to be pretty useful, and would hate to see it disappear, so I took it over and bumped it to the latest version (2.16.0). If you would like to maintain this let me know. luke From fedora at leemhuis.info Mon Oct 2 20:02:31 2006 From: fedora at leemhuis.info (Thorsten Leemhuis) Date: Mon, 02 Oct 2006 22:02:31 +0200 Subject: another semi-mass-rebuild (Was: Re: rebuilt for unwind info generation, broken in gcc-4.1.1-21) In-Reply-To: <4520FC24.4060402@leemhuis.info> References: <4520FC24.4060402@leemhuis.info> Message-ID: <45217057.70203@leemhuis.info> Thorsten Leemhuis schrieb: > Guys watching the rawhide report will notice that there are a lot of > packages listed today that have a Changelog entry which lists > > [...] > - rebuilt for unwind info generation, broken in gcc-4.1.1-21 > [...] > > We probably need to rebuild some packages in Extras, too. FESCo > currently discusses when/how to do that. > > Some background: It looks like gcc 4.1.1-21 introduced a bug that wasn't > fixed until gcc 4.1.1-26, so there's a window from Sept. 8 until Sept. > 26 within which any binary package would have been built with the bad > compiler. Some additional details jeremy provided: Essentially, the result is that backtraces in gdb won't (necessarily) work and that any app which calls backtrace() is likely to segfault. There are a few other potential ways that things can go wrong, but suffice to say that, yes, binary packages built in the window will need to be rebuilt :-/ > So only those packages build in the above timeframe need another rebuild > in devel. It currently looks like we'll use a script that increases > release in CVS, commits the changes and queues the build for all of > those. But feel free to build your packages ahead of time (e.g. now) > yourself to save the script and FESCo some work. tia! > > More details to follow. Well, here they are. The current plan is: - do another mass rebuild for all those packages that might be affected. That means: all arch packages that were build from Sept. 8 until Sept. 26 -/+ some hours for safety - let a script ( https://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-extras-list/2006-July/msg00777.html ?) increase release, commit, tag and queue the build of all effected packages. Someone from FESCo (probably c4chris) will handle that. - we start on Wednesdays evening (CEST) - we hereby encourage maintainers to queue the rebuilds of their stuff of their own before Wednesdays evening Sorry for the trouble. CU thl From jakub at redhat.com Mon Oct 2 20:12:53 2006 From: jakub at redhat.com (Jakub Jelinek) Date: Mon, 2 Oct 2006 16:12:53 -0400 Subject: another semi-mass-rebuild (Was: Re: rebuilt for unwind info generation, broken in gcc-4.1.1-21) In-Reply-To: <45217057.70203@leemhuis.info> References: <4520FC24.4060402@leemhuis.info> <45217057.70203@leemhuis.info> Message-ID: <20061002201253.GK20982@devserv.devel.redhat.com> On Mon, Oct 02, 2006 at 10:02:31PM +0200, Thorsten Leemhuis wrote: > Thorsten Leemhuis schrieb: > > Guys watching the rawhide report will notice that there are a lot of > > packages listed today that have a Changelog entry which lists > > > > [...] > > - rebuilt for unwind info generation, broken in gcc-4.1.1-21 > > [...] > > > > We probably need to rebuild some packages in Extras, too. FESCo > > currently discusses when/how to do that. > > > > Some background: It looks like gcc 4.1.1-21 introduced a bug that wasn't > > fixed until gcc 4.1.1-26, so there's a window from Sept. 8 until Sept. > > 26 within which any binary package would have been built with the bad > > compiler. September, 18th actually, through September, 26th. gcc-4.1.1-2{1,2} weren't ever added into rawhide tree, only 4.1.1-2{3,4,5} were, the first one on Monday, 18th. > Some additional details jeremy provided: > > Essentially, the result is that backtraces in gdb won't (necessarily) > work and that any app which calls backtrace() is likely to segfault. > There are a few other potential ways that things can go wrong, but > suffice to say that, yes, binary packages built in the window will need > to be rebuilt :-/ The unwind info is also used for pthread_cancel and C++ exceptions BTW. For more info about the bug see e.g.: http://sources.redhat.com/ml/binutils/2006-09/msg00284.html http://sources.redhat.com/ml/binutils/2006-09/msg00292.html http://gcc.gnu.org/PR22313 http://gcc.gnu.org/PR29132 Jakub From ville.skytta at iki.fi Tue Oct 3 06:44:34 2006 From: ville.skytta at iki.fi (Ville =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Skytt=E4?=) Date: Tue, 03 Oct 2006 09:44:34 +0300 Subject: Remaining FE6 cleanups In-Reply-To: <1159722769.28809.48.camel@viper.local> References: <1159722769.28809.48.camel@viper.local> Message-ID: <1159857874.24351.36.camel@viper.local> On Sun, 2006-10-01 at 20:12 +0300, Ville Skytt? wrote: > There's a bunch of newly orphaned packages as of today which haven't > been removed from the repository nor are in Extras/OrphanedPackages page > in Wiki yet. Given that this happened so close to when things were > supposed to be ready for FC6 and that their removal would break quite a > few packages, some alternatives to just removing them are being > discussed - more info about that later. The mentioned packages have been added to the orphaned page in Wiki, but they will not be removed before FC6 because there's too little time for others to chime in at this point. From steve at kspei.com Tue Oct 3 14:54:25 2006 From: steve at kspei.com (Steven Pritchard) Date: Tue, 3 Oct 2006 09:54:25 -0500 Subject: Remaining FE6 cleanups In-Reply-To: <1159857874.24351.36.camel@viper.local> References: <1159722769.28809.48.camel@viper.local> <1159857874.24351.36.camel@viper.local> Message-ID: <20061003145425.GA18233@osiris.silug.org> On Tue, Oct 03, 2006 at 09:44:34AM +0300, Ville Skytt? wrote: > The mentioned packages have been added to the orphaned page in Wiki, but > they will not be removed before FC6 because there's too little time for > others to chime in at this point. When are the FC-6 branches being created? Steve -- Steven Pritchard - K&S Pritchard Enterprises, Inc. Email: steve at kspei.com http://www.kspei.com/ Phone: (618)398-3000 Mobile: (618)567-7320 From jkeating at redhat.com Tue Oct 3 15:09:22 2006 From: jkeating at redhat.com (Jesse Keating) Date: Tue, 3 Oct 2006 11:09:22 -0400 Subject: FC6 is frozen Message-ID: <200610031109.23072.jkeating@redhat.com> We're now into deep freeze state for FC6. Any new packages brought in will need two nods from Bill Nottingham, Jeremy Katz, and Myself. The only things that should be coming in now will be critical crasher bugs, multilib conflicts, or installation blockers. -- Jesse Keating Release Engineer: Fedora -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 189 bytes Desc: not available URL: From katzj at redhat.com Tue Oct 3 15:06:51 2006 From: katzj at redhat.com (Jeremy Katz) Date: Tue, 03 Oct 2006 11:06:51 -0400 Subject: Remaining FE6 cleanups In-Reply-To: <20061003145425.GA18233@osiris.silug.org> References: <1159722769.28809.48.camel@viper.local> <1159857874.24351.36.camel@viper.local> <20061003145425.GA18233@osiris.silug.org> Message-ID: <1159888011.4363.10.camel@aglarond.local> On Tue, 2006-10-03 at 09:54 -0500, Steven Pritchard wrote: > On Tue, Oct 03, 2006 at 09:44:34AM +0300, Ville Skytt? wrote: > > The mentioned packages have been added to the orphaned page in Wiki, but > > they will not be removed before FC6 because there's too little time for > > others to chime in at this point. > > When are the FC-6 branches being created? Generally, I go through and do the branch creation when we have a final tree and it's syncing out. Better schedule for when that is when we get closer to then... Jeremy From skvidal at linux.duke.edu Tue Oct 3 15:13:45 2006 From: skvidal at linux.duke.edu (seth vidal) Date: Tue, 03 Oct 2006 11:13:45 -0400 Subject: FC6 is frozen In-Reply-To: <200610031109.23072.jkeating@redhat.com> References: <200610031109.23072.jkeating@redhat.com> Message-ID: <1159888425.8586.1.camel@cutter> On Tue, 2006-10-03 at 11:09 -0400, Jesse Keating wrote: > We're now into deep freeze state for FC6. Any new packages brought in will > need two nods from Bill Nottingham, Jeremy Katz, and Myself. The only things > that should be coming in now will be critical crasher bugs, multilib > conflicts, or installation blockers. > brrr -sv From notting at redhat.com Tue Oct 3 15:18:40 2006 From: notting at redhat.com (Bill Nottingham) Date: Tue, 3 Oct 2006 11:18:40 -0400 Subject: FC6 is frozen In-Reply-To: <1159888425.8586.1.camel@cutter> References: <200610031109.23072.jkeating@redhat.com> <1159888425.8586.1.camel@cutter> Message-ID: <20061003151840.GF7470@nostromo.devel.redhat.com> seth vidal (skvidal at linux.duke.edu) said: > brrr Cold? In NC???? Bill From mtasaka at ioa.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp Tue Oct 3 15:20:49 2006 From: mtasaka at ioa.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp (Mamoru Tasaka) Date: Wed, 04 Oct 2006 00:20:49 +0900 Subject: Remaining FE6 cleanups In-Reply-To: <45200B66.80901@knox.net.nz> References: <1159722769.28809.48.camel@viper.local> <45200BCE.7010904@hhs.nl> <45200B66.80901@knox.net.nz> Message-ID: <45227FD1.9010704@ioa.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp> Michael J. Knox wrote: > > That is correct. All my packages were rebuilt, with one exception. > gdk-pixbuf. This needs some autotools love to build in mock. > For gdk-pixbuf, some incompatible changes seem to have happened between m4-1.4.4 <-> m4-1.4.5. Would you try this patch? For me, at least mockbuild succeeds. Mamoru Tasaka --- gdk-pixbuf.spec.orig 2006-08-28 13:20:33.000000000 +0900 +++ gdk-pixbuf.spec 2006-10-04 00:13:44.000000000 +0900 @@ -1,6 +1,6 @@ Name: gdk-pixbuf Version: 0.22.0 -Release: 31%{?dist} +Release: 31.1%{?dist} Epoch: 1 Summary: An image loading library used with GNOME License: LGPL @@ -80,6 +80,7 @@ libtoolize --copy --force aclocal-1.4 automake-1.4 +sed -i -e 's|AM_CONFIG_HEADER|AC_CONFIG_HEADER|' configure.in autoconf (cd gdk-pixbuf/local-hack-gmodule && make && cp gmodule-local.h ..) From dledford at redhat.com Tue Oct 3 17:30:22 2006 From: dledford at redhat.com (Doug Ledford) Date: Tue, 03 Oct 2006 13:30:22 -0400 Subject: FC6 is frozen In-Reply-To: <20061003151840.GF7470@nostromo.devel.redhat.com> References: <200610031109.23072.jkeating@redhat.com> <1159888425.8586.1.camel@cutter> <20061003151840.GF7470@nostromo.devel.redhat.com> Message-ID: <1159896622.5074.225.camel@fc6.xsintricity.com> On Tue, 2006-10-03 at 11:18 -0400, Bill Nottingham wrote: > seth vidal (skvidal at linux.duke.edu) said: > > brrr > > Cold? In NC???? Preposterous. -- Doug Ledford GPG KeyID: CFBFF194 http://people.redhat.com/dledford Infiniband specific RPMs available at http://people.redhat.com/dledford/Infiniband -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 189 bytes Desc: This is a digitally signed message part URL: From jkeating at redhat.com Tue Oct 3 20:37:15 2006 From: jkeating at redhat.com (Jesse Keating) Date: Tue, 3 Oct 2006 16:37:15 -0400 Subject: Vote on your name choice for FC6! Message-ID: <200610031637.15247.jkeating@redhat.com> http://www.keysurvey.com/survey/124649/14f1/ If you vote more than once, only your last vote works. Polls close on Thursday when I get ready to build the fedora-release package. Any voting done after that is null and void (: -- Jesse Keating Release Engineer: Fedora -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 189 bytes Desc: not available URL: From jonathan.underwood at gmail.com Wed Oct 4 17:47:56 2006 From: jonathan.underwood at gmail.com (Jonathan Underwood) Date: Wed, 4 Oct 2006 18:47:56 +0100 Subject: FC6 is frozen In-Reply-To: <200610031109.23072.jkeating@redhat.com> References: <200610031109.23072.jkeating@redhat.com> Message-ID: <645d17210610041047x40a8320erc81c24c6eee1ee09@mail.gmail.com> On 03/10/06, Jesse Keating wrote: > We're now into deep freeze state for FC6. Any new packages brought in will > need two nods from Bill Nottingham, Jeremy Katz, and Myself. The only things > that should be coming in now will be critical crasher bugs, multilib > conflicts, or installation blockers. > I just had a peek at bug 150224, the FC6 blocker tracker, and there seems still to be a number of bugs open... From sundaram at fedoraproject.org Wed Oct 4 17:56:53 2006 From: sundaram at fedoraproject.org (Rahul Sundaram) Date: Wed, 04 Oct 2006 23:26:53 +0530 Subject: FC6 is frozen In-Reply-To: <645d17210610041047x40a8320erc81c24c6eee1ee09@mail.gmail.com> References: <200610031109.23072.jkeating@redhat.com> <645d17210610041047x40a8320erc81c24c6eee1ee09@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <4523F5E5.3030105@fedoraproject.org> Jonathan Underwood wrote: > On 03/10/06, Jesse Keating wrote: >> We're now into deep freeze state for FC6. Any new packages brought in >> will >> need two nods from Bill Nottingham, Jeremy Katz, and Myself. The only >> things >> that should be coming in now will be critical crasher bugs, multilib >> conflicts, or installation blockers. >> > > I just had a peek at bug 150224, the FC6 blocker tracker, and there > seems still to be a number of bugs open... > https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/showdependencytree.cgi?id=150224&hide_resolved=1 All of them seem to meet the above criteria including security issues. Rahul From kevin at tummy.com Wed Oct 4 18:00:21 2006 From: kevin at tummy.com (Kevin Fenzi) Date: Wed, 04 Oct 2006 12:00:21 -0600 (MDT) Subject: Xfce 4.4rc1 update Message-ID: <20061004.120021.119277401.kevin@tummy.com> Just a heads up... Christoph (The Xfce plugins maintainer in extras) and myself are planning on pushing Xfce 4.4rc1 into extras in the next few days. Here's my current plan: - Orphan xffm (no longer in core Xfce and upstream has changed dramatically). - Request xffm removal from devel repos. - Sometime this evening, check in my spec changes/upload new sources to extras cvs. If anyone notices anything wrong or bad in these commits, please let me know. Christoph will also be checking in all the plugins spec and source changes. - Do some more local testing to make sure all the checked in versions still build in mock, etc. - Thursday evening starting around 7:30pm MDT start requesting builds. Christoph will start his builds as soon as the core Xfce libs he needs are built. If signers could hold of doing pushes in there until they are all built that would be great. - Profit! (Enjoy the new 4.4 Xfce.) If anyone sees problems or has issues, let myself or Christoph know. Thanks, kevin -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 189 bytes Desc: not available URL: From jkeating at redhat.com Wed Oct 4 18:03:57 2006 From: jkeating at redhat.com (Jesse Keating) Date: Wed, 4 Oct 2006 14:03:57 -0400 Subject: FC6 is frozen In-Reply-To: <645d17210610041047x40a8320erc81c24c6eee1ee09@mail.gmail.com> References: <200610031109.23072.jkeating@redhat.com> <645d17210610041047x40a8320erc81c24c6eee1ee09@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <200610041403.57781.jkeating@redhat.com> On Wednesday 04 October 2006 13:47, Jonathan Underwood wrote: > I just had a peek at bug 150224, the FC6 blocker tracker, and there > seems still to be a number of bugs open... Many of these were "We'd really like to see this fixed by FC6 launch" and it didn't happen. We've been evaluating them on a case by case basis for actually blocking the release. Not many of them will actually block the release, but we're trying hard (hopefully) to get many of them fixed. -- Jesse Keating Release Engineer: Fedora -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 189 bytes Desc: not available URL: From jonathan.underwood at gmail.com Wed Oct 4 18:58:45 2006 From: jonathan.underwood at gmail.com (Jonathan Underwood) Date: Wed, 4 Oct 2006 19:58:45 +0100 Subject: FC6 is frozen In-Reply-To: <200610041403.57781.jkeating@redhat.com> References: <200610031109.23072.jkeating@redhat.com> <645d17210610041047x40a8320erc81c24c6eee1ee09@mail.gmail.com> <200610041403.57781.jkeating@redhat.com> Message-ID: <645d17210610041158q3d0b4749lfc197c556058acf3@mail.gmail.com> On 04/10/06, Jesse Keating wrote: > On Wednesday 04 October 2006 13:47, Jonathan Underwood wrote: > > I just had a peek at bug 150224, the FC6 blocker tracker, and there > > seems still to be a number of bugs open... > > Many of these were "We'd really like to see this fixed by FC6 launch" and it > didn't happen. We've been evaluating them on a case by case basis for > actually blocking the release. Not many of them will actually block the > release, but we're trying hard (hopefully) to get many of them fixed. > My pet bug: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=196590 really should be fixed before release IMO. Jonathan. > -- > Jesse Keating > Release Engineer: Fedora > > > -- > Fedora-maintainers mailing list > Fedora-maintainers at redhat.com > https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-maintainers > > > > From Christian.Iseli at licr.org Wed Oct 4 19:11:54 2006 From: Christian.Iseli at licr.org (Christian Iseli) Date: Wed, 4 Oct 2006 21:11:54 +0200 Subject: another semi-mass-rebuild (Was: Re: rebuilt for unwind info generation, broken in gcc-4.1.1-21) In-Reply-To: <45217057.70203@leemhuis.info> References: <4520FC24.4060402@leemhuis.info> <45217057.70203@leemhuis.info> Message-ID: <20061004211154.57694d36@ludwig-alpha> Hey folks, On Mon, 02 Oct 2006 22:02:31 +0200, Thorsten Leemhuis wrote: > Well, here they are. The current plan is: > > - do another mass rebuild for all those packages that might be affected. > That means: all arch packages that were build from Sept. 8 until Sept. > 26 -/+ some hours for safety > - let a script ( > https://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-extras-list/2006-July/msg00777.html > ?) increase release, commit, tag and queue the build of all effected > packages. Someone from FESCo (probably c4chris) will handle that. > - we start on Wednesdays evening (CEST) > - we hereby encourage maintainers to queue the rebuilds of their stuff > of their own before Wednesdays evening I'm getting ready to perform said semi-mass rebuild through some automated scripts. Here is the list of packages I intend to rebuild. Please yell quickly or hold your peace... Cheers, C adns ardour autotrace azureus banner basket blktool bochs bwm-ng cfengine clamav cyrus-imapd dap-freeform_handler dap-hdf4_handler dap-netcdf_handler dap-server dhcp-forwarder dssi dynamite ebtables eds-feed eventlog exim exiv2 farsight fatsort fftw filelight fluidsynth fluidsynth-dssi fontforge FreeWnn gaim-galago gaim-guifications gajim galeon gcin git gkrellm gnash gnet2 gnokii gnome-build gnomesword gnupg2 gossip gpsim gputils grace grads graphviz gstreamer-python gtk-sharp hexter-dssi ipe ip-sentinel itext jakarta-commons-cli jasper jhead jogl k3d kawa kdemultimedia-extras kdiff3 kicad koffice kover kphotoalbum lash leafnode libannodex libcdio libcmml libdap libdnet libetpan libgalago-gtk libifp liblo liblrdf libnc-dap liboggz libpaper libpqxx libstatgrab libsynaptics libuninameslist licq liferea lsscsi milter-greylist mod_annodex monodoc most mtd-utils mxml mysql-connector-java nexuiz ngrep ninja octave-forge ode oooqs2 opencv orange pdsh pengupop perl-Device-SerialPort perl-Gnome2-Canvas perl-Imager perl-Readonly-XS perl-Spreadsheet-ParseExcel php-pecl-Fileinfo picocom pikdev PyKDE python-enchant python-twisted PyX rafkill raptor rblcheck rdiff-backup rekall rman R-RScaLAPACK sabayon sblim-cmpi-base sblim-cmpi-devel sblim-wbemcli scanssh SDL_gfx seq24 showimg smarteiffel ss5 swh-plugins sword synce-gnomevfs synce-software-manager synce-trayicon t1lib t1utils tellico Thunar tuxpaint unshield util-vserver uuid uw-imap vorbisgain whatmask wxMaxima XaraLX xchm xfce4-weather-plugin z88dk zynaddsubfx From rdieter at math.unl.edu Wed Oct 4 19:17:53 2006 From: rdieter at math.unl.edu (Rex Dieter) Date: Wed, 04 Oct 2006 14:17:53 -0500 Subject: another semi-mass-rebuild (Was: Re: rebuilt for unwind info generation, broken in gcc-4.1.1-21) In-Reply-To: <20061004211154.57694d36@ludwig-alpha> References: <4520FC24.4060402@leemhuis.info> <45217057.70203@leemhuis.info> <20061004211154.57694d36@ludwig-alpha> Message-ID: <452408E1.5020302@math.unl.edu> Christian Iseli wrote: > I'm getting ready to perform said semi-mass rebuild through some > automated scripts. > > Here is the list of packages I intend to rebuild. Please yell quickly > or hold your peace... I can do mine, including: > exiv2 > gnupg2 > jasper > kdemultimedia-extras > koffice > kphotoalbum > libpqxx > PyKDE > uw-imap > wxMaxima -- Rex From jakub at redhat.com Wed Oct 4 19:25:06 2006 From: jakub at redhat.com (Jakub Jelinek) Date: Wed, 4 Oct 2006 15:25:06 -0400 Subject: another semi-mass-rebuild (Was: Re: rebuilt for unwind info generation, broken in gcc-4.1.1-21) In-Reply-To: <20061004211154.57694d36@ludwig-alpha> References: <4520FC24.4060402@leemhuis.info> <45217057.70203@leemhuis.info> <20061004211154.57694d36@ludwig-alpha> Message-ID: <20061004192506.GX20982@devserv.devel.redhat.com> On Wed, Oct 04, 2006 at 09:11:54PM +0200, Christian Iseli wrote: > Hey folks, > > On Mon, 02 Oct 2006 22:02:31 +0200, Thorsten Leemhuis wrote: > > Well, here they are. The current plan is: > > > > - do another mass rebuild for all those packages that might be affected. > > That means: all arch packages that were build from Sept. 8 until Sept. > > 26 -/+ some hours for safety > > - let a script ( > > https://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-extras-list/2006-July/msg00777.html > > ?) increase release, commit, tag and queue the build of all effected > > packages. Someone from FESCo (probably c4chris) will handle that. > > - we start on Wednesdays evening (CEST) > > - we hereby encourage maintainers to queue the rebuilds of their stuff > > of their own before Wednesdays evening > > I'm getting ready to perform said semi-mass rebuild through some > automated scripts. > > Here is the list of packages I intend to rebuild. Please yell quickly > or hold your peace... Does that include package that has been last rebuilt between Sep, 8th and Sep, 17th? Those don't need to be rebuilt, only Sep, 18th through Sep, 26th is the bad toolchain window. Jakub From jima at beer.tclug.org Wed Oct 4 19:43:07 2006 From: jima at beer.tclug.org (Jima) Date: Wed, 4 Oct 2006 14:43:07 -0500 (CDT) Subject: another semi-mass-rebuild (Was: Re: rebuilt for unwind info generation, broken in gcc-4.1.1-21) In-Reply-To: <20061004211154.57694d36@ludwig-alpha> References: <4520FC24.4060402@leemhuis.info> <45217057.70203@leemhuis.info> <20061004211154.57694d36@ludwig-alpha> Message-ID: On Wed, 4 Oct 2006, Christian Iseli wrote: > Here is the list of packages I intend to rebuild. Please yell quickly > or hold your peace... > *edit* > banner > bwm-ng > graphviz > libdnet > libstatgrab > ngrep > rblcheck > scanssh You can remove those from the automated bump/rebuild. I'll poke them manually; I know at least one of them could use some bugfix TLC anyway. Thanks Christian! Jima From Christian.Iseli at licr.org Wed Oct 4 21:30:35 2006 From: Christian.Iseli at licr.org (Christian Iseli) Date: Wed, 4 Oct 2006 23:30:35 +0200 Subject: another semi-mass-rebuild (Was: Re: rebuilt for unwind info generation, broken in gcc-4.1.1-21) In-Reply-To: <20061004192506.GX20982@devserv.devel.redhat.com> References: <4520FC24.4060402@leemhuis.info> <45217057.70203@leemhuis.info> <20061004211154.57694d36@ludwig-alpha> <20061004192506.GX20982@devserv.devel.redhat.com> Message-ID: <20061004233035.37830947@ludwig-alpha> On Wed, 4 Oct 2006 15:25:06 -0400, Jakub Jelinek wrote: > Does that include package that has been last rebuilt between Sep, 8th and > Sep, 17th? Nope. > Those don't need to be rebuilt, only Sep, 18th through > Sep, 26th is the bad toolchain window. Right, that's what I used. Cheers, C From Christian.Iseli at licr.org Wed Oct 4 21:41:17 2006 From: Christian.Iseli at licr.org (Christian Iseli) Date: Wed, 4 Oct 2006 23:41:17 +0200 Subject: another semi-mass-rebuild (Was: Re: rebuilt for unwind info generation, broken in gcc-4.1.1-21) In-Reply-To: <452408E1.5020302@math.unl.edu> References: <4520FC24.4060402@leemhuis.info> <45217057.70203@leemhuis.info> <20061004211154.57694d36@ludwig-alpha> <452408E1.5020302@math.unl.edu> Message-ID: <20061004234117.6c79b3d2@ludwig-alpha> On Wed, 04 Oct 2006 14:17:53 -0500, Rex Dieter wrote: > I can do mine, including: > > > exiv2 > > gnupg2 > > jasper > > kdemultimedia-extras > > koffice > > kphotoalbum > > libpqxx > > PyKDE > > uw-imap > > wxMaxima Ok, I'll skip those. C From Christian.Iseli at licr.org Wed Oct 4 21:43:09 2006 From: Christian.Iseli at licr.org (Christian Iseli) Date: Wed, 4 Oct 2006 23:43:09 +0200 Subject: another semi-mass-rebuild (Was: Re: rebuilt for unwind info generation, broken in gcc-4.1.1-21) In-Reply-To: References: <4520FC24.4060402@leemhuis.info> <45217057.70203@leemhuis.info> <20061004211154.57694d36@ludwig-alpha> Message-ID: <20061004234309.01591d9f@ludwig-alpha> On Wed, 4 Oct 2006 14:43:07 -0500 (CDT), Jima wrote: > > banner > > bwm-ng > > graphviz > > libdnet > > libstatgrab > > ngrep > > rblcheck > > scanssh > > You can remove those from the automated bump/rebuild. I'll poke them > manually; I know at least one of them could use some bugfix TLC anyway. Ok. > Thanks Christian! Welcome :-) C From Christian.Iseli at licr.org Wed Oct 4 23:51:05 2006 From: Christian.Iseli at licr.org (Christian Iseli) Date: Thu, 5 Oct 2006 01:51:05 +0200 Subject: another semi-mass-rebuild (Was: Re: rebuilt for unwind info generation, broken in gcc-4.1.1-21) In-Reply-To: <20061004211154.57694d36@ludwig-alpha> References: <4520FC24.4060402@leemhuis.info> <45217057.70203@leemhuis.info> <20061004211154.57694d36@ludwig-alpha> Message-ID: <20061005015105.0880ec87@ludwig-alpha> On Wed, 4 Oct 2006 21:11:54 +0200, I wrote: > I'm getting ready to perform said semi-mass rebuild through some > automated scripts. The deed is done. So far one package failed to build: libcdio http://buildsys.fedoraproject.org/build-status/job.psp?uid=18982 the "make test" seems to go boink... Need to sleep now. C From rc040203 at freenet.de Thu Oct 5 03:52:14 2006 From: rc040203 at freenet.de (Ralf Corsepius) Date: Thu, 05 Oct 2006 05:52:14 +0200 Subject: another semi-mass-rebuild (Was: Re: rebuilt for unwind info generation, broken in gcc-4.1.1-21) In-Reply-To: <20061004192506.GX20982@devserv.devel.redhat.com> References: <4520FC24.4060402@leemhuis.info> <45217057.70203@leemhuis.info> <20061004211154.57694d36@ludwig-alpha> <20061004192506.GX20982@devserv.devel.redhat.com> Message-ID: <1160020334.24866.11.camel@mccallum.corsepiu.local> On Wed, 2006-10-04 at 15:25 -0400, Jakub Jelinek wrote: > On Wed, Oct 04, 2006 at 09:11:54PM +0200, Christian Iseli wrote: > > Hey folks, > > > > On Mon, 02 Oct 2006 22:02:31 +0200, Thorsten Leemhuis wrote: > > > Well, here they are. The current plan is: > > > > > > - do another mass rebuild for all those packages that might be affected. > > > That means: all arch packages that were build from Sept. 8 until Sept. > > > 26 -/+ some hours for safety > > > - let a script ( > > > https://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-extras-list/2006-July/msg00777.html > > > ?) increase release, commit, tag and queue the build of all effected > > > packages. Someone from FESCo (probably c4chris) will handle that. > > > - we start on Wednesdays evening (CEST) > > > - we hereby encourage maintainers to queue the rebuilds of their stuff > > > of their own before Wednesdays evening > > > > I'm getting ready to perform said semi-mass rebuild through some > > automated scripts. > > > > Here is the list of packages I intend to rebuild. Please yell quickly > > or hold your peace... > > Does that include package that has been last rebuilt between Sep, 8th and > Sep, 17th? Those don't need to be rebuilt, only Sep, 18th through > Sep, 26th is the bad toolchain window. And how about packages depending on these "broken packages (packages that have been built after Sep, 18th, which were using the "miscompiled" ones during their built)? Do they also need are rebuild? Are there any such packages? Ralf From jakub at redhat.com Thu Oct 5 06:44:20 2006 From: jakub at redhat.com (Jakub Jelinek) Date: Thu, 5 Oct 2006 02:44:20 -0400 Subject: another semi-mass-rebuild (Was: Re: rebuilt for unwind info generation, broken in gcc-4.1.1-21) In-Reply-To: <1160020334.24866.11.camel@mccallum.corsepiu.local> References: <4520FC24.4060402@leemhuis.info> <45217057.70203@leemhuis.info> <20061004211154.57694d36@ludwig-alpha> <20061004192506.GX20982@devserv.devel.redhat.com> <1160020334.24866.11.camel@mccallum.corsepiu.local> Message-ID: <20061005064420.GY20982@devserv.devel.redhat.com> On Thu, Oct 05, 2006 at 05:52:14AM +0200, Ralf Corsepius wrote: > > Does that include package that has been last rebuilt between Sep, 8th and > > Sep, 17th? Those don't need to be rebuilt, only Sep, 18th through > > Sep, 26th is the bad toolchain window. > > And how about packages depending on these "broken packages (packages > that have been built after Sep, 18th, which were using the "miscompiled" > ones during their built)? No, the problem only affects the unwind info of the package you built with broken toolchain, not packages depending on that way built packages. Jakub From Christian.Iseli at licr.org Thu Oct 5 09:56:07 2006 From: Christian.Iseli at licr.org (Christian Iseli) Date: Thu, 5 Oct 2006 11:56:07 +0200 Subject: semi-mass rebuild completed Message-ID: <20061005115607.5a42c921@ludwig-alpha> Hi folks, I have rebuilt all remaining packages that had been built in the Sep 18 Sep 26 window (list below). There are three duds: libcdio http://buildsys.fedoraproject.org/build-status/job.psp?uid=18982 kawa http://buildsys.fedoraproject.org/build-status/job.psp?uid=19052 liblrdf http://buildsys.fedoraproject.org/build-status/job.psp?uid=19046 Guess I'll open 3 BZ tickets... Cheers, C ---- adns ardour autotrace azureus basket blktool bochs cfengine clamav cyrus-imapd dap-freeform_handler dap-hdf4_handler dap-netcdf_handler dap-server dhcp-forwarder dssi dynamite ebtables eds-feed eventlog exim farsight fatsort fftw filelight fluidsynth fluidsynth-dssi fontforge FreeWnn gaim-galago gaim-guifications gajim galeon gcin git gkrellm gnash gnet2 gnokii gnome-build gnomesword gossip gpsim gputils grace grads gstreamer-python gtk-sharp hexter-dssi ipe ip-sentinel itext jakarta-commons-cli jhead jogl k3d kawa kdiff3 kicad kover lash leafnode libannodex libcdio libcmml libdap libetpan libgalago-gtk libifp liblo liblrdf libnc-dap liboggz libpaper libsynaptics libuninameslist licq liferea lsscsi milter-greylist mod_annodex monodoc most mtd-utils mxml mysql-connector-java nexuiz ninja octave-forge ode oooqs2 opencv orange pdsh pengupop perl-Device-SerialPort perl-Gnome2-Canvas perl-Imager perl-Readonly-XS perl-Spreadsheet-ParseExcel php-pecl-Fileinfo picocom pikdev python-enchant python-twisted PyX rafkill raptor rdiff-backup rekall rman R-RScaLAPACK sabayon sblim-cmpi-base sblim-cmpi-devel sblim-wbemcli SDL_gfx seq24 showimg smarteiffel ss5 swh-plugins sword synce-gnomevfs synce-software-manager synce-trayicon t1lib t1utils tellico Thunar tuxpaint unshield util-vserver uuid vorbisgain whatmask XaraLX xchm xfce4-weather-plugin z88dk zynaddsubfx From Christian.Iseli at licr.org Thu Oct 5 13:39:40 2006 From: Christian.Iseli at licr.org (Christian Iseli) Date: Thu, 5 Oct 2006 15:39:40 +0200 Subject: semi-mass rebuild completed In-Reply-To: <20061005115607.5a42c921@ludwig-alpha> References: <20061005115607.5a42c921@ludwig-alpha> Message-ID: <20061005153940.1811ef72@ludwig-alpha> On Thu, 5 Oct 2006 11:56:07 +0200, Christian Iseli wrote: > There are three duds: > libcdio http://buildsys.fedoraproject.org/build-status/job.psp?uid=18982 > kawa http://buildsys.fedoraproject.org/build-status/job.psp?uid=19052 > liblrdf http://buildsys.fedoraproject.org/build-status/job.psp?uid=19046 > > Guess I'll open 3 BZ tickets... libcdio seems to have been taken care of. So now we have: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=209451 (kawa) https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=209453 (liblrdf) C From green at redhat.com Thu Oct 5 18:01:01 2006 From: green at redhat.com (Anthony Green) Date: Thu, 05 Oct 2006 11:01:01 -0700 Subject: semi-mass rebuild completed In-Reply-To: <20061005153940.1811ef72@ludwig-alpha> References: <20061005115607.5a42c921@ludwig-alpha> <20061005153940.1811ef72@ludwig-alpha> Message-ID: <1160071261.2970.49.camel@localhost.localdomain> On Thu, 2006-10-05 at 15:39 +0200, Christian Iseli wrote: > So now we have: > https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=209451 (kawa) This is a gjdoc regression from a recent update. I'm putting a work-around in the kawa package for now. > https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=209453 (liblrdf) I was %excluding the .la file in the %files section, but I guess that doesn't work anymore. I'll delete the file after installation instead. AG From bugs.michael at gmx.net Thu Oct 5 18:22:39 2006 From: bugs.michael at gmx.net (Michael Schwendt) Date: Thu, 5 Oct 2006 20:22:39 +0200 Subject: semi-mass rebuild completed In-Reply-To: <1160071261.2970.49.camel@localhost.localdomain> References: <20061005115607.5a42c921@ludwig-alpha> <20061005153940.1811ef72@ludwig-alpha> <1160071261.2970.49.camel@localhost.localdomain> Message-ID: <20061005202239.654d383b.bugs.michael@gmx.net> On Thu, 05 Oct 2006 11:01:01 -0700, Anthony Green wrote: > On Thu, 2006-10-05 at 15:39 +0200, Christian Iseli wrote: > > So now we have: > > https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=209451 (kawa) > > This is a gjdoc regression from a recent update. I'm putting a > work-around in the kawa package for now. > > > https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=209453 (liblrdf) > > I was %excluding the .la file in the %files section, but I guess that > doesn't work anymore. I'll delete the file after installation instead. %exclude still works, but apparently not anymore when automated checks are applied and fail for files in the buildroot although they would be %excluded. From mharris at mharris.ca Fri Oct 6 09:01:04 2006 From: mharris at mharris.ca (Mike A. Harris) Date: Fri, 06 Oct 2006 05:01:04 -0400 Subject: Vote on your name choice for FC6! In-Reply-To: <200610031637.15247.jkeating@redhat.com> References: <200610031637.15247.jkeating@redhat.com> Message-ID: <45261B50.1090004@mharris.ca> Jesse Keating wrote: > http://www.keysurvey.com/survey/124649/14f1/ > > If you vote more than once, only your last vote works. Polls close on > Thursday when I get ready to build the fedora-release package. Any voting > done after that is null and void (: 'tis too bad the keysurvey site doesn't show the current ongoing results of the survey process as it is underway. It'd be interesting to see it updated live... Then again, it'd be even more interesting if the surveys were being done using open source software, directly on a Fedora branded website too. ;o) From pix at crazyfrogs.org Fri Oct 6 09:06:20 2006 From: pix at crazyfrogs.org (Pix) Date: Fri, 06 Oct 2006 11:06:20 +0200 Subject: Vote on your name choice for FC6! In-Reply-To: <45261B50.1090004@mharris.ca> References: <200610031637.15247.jkeating@redhat.com> <45261B50.1090004@mharris.ca> Message-ID: <1160125580.28214.2.camel@ruatha> Impossible, "Zod" would won at each release ;) Le vendredi 06 octobre 2006 ? 05:01 -0400, Mike A. Harris a ?crit : > Jesse Keating wrote: > > http://www.keysurvey.com/survey/124649/14f1/ > > > > If you vote more than once, only your last vote works. Polls close on > > Thursday when I get ready to build the fedora-release package. Any voting > > done after that is null and void (: > > 'tis too bad the keysurvey site doesn't show the current ongoing results > of the survey process as it is underway. It'd be interesting to see > it updated live... > > Then again, it'd be even more interesting if the surveys were being done > using open source software, directly on a Fedora branded website too. ;o) > > -- > Fedora-maintainers mailing list > Fedora-maintainers at redhat.com > https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-maintainers -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From giallu at gmail.com Fri Oct 6 10:22:18 2006 From: giallu at gmail.com (Gianluca Sforna) Date: Fri, 6 Oct 2006 12:22:18 +0200 Subject: Vote on your name choice for FC6! In-Reply-To: <1160125580.28214.2.camel@ruatha> References: <200610031637.15247.jkeating@redhat.com> <45261B50.1090004@mharris.ca> <1160125580.28214.2.camel@ruatha> Message-ID: On 10/6/06, Pix wrote: > > Impossible, "Zod" would won at each release ;) > Actually, I voted for Zod... :) but coming from "Bordeaux" to "Brunello" would have been nice... From alan at redhat.com Fri Oct 6 10:29:58 2006 From: alan at redhat.com (Alan Cox) Date: Fri, 6 Oct 2006 06:29:58 -0400 Subject: Vote on your name choice for FC6! In-Reply-To: <45261B50.1090004@mharris.ca> References: <200610031637.15247.jkeating@redhat.com> <45261B50.1090004@mharris.ca> Message-ID: <20061006102958.GA15122@devserv.devel.redhat.com> On Fri, Oct 06, 2006 at 05:01:04AM -0400, Mike A. Harris wrote: > 'tis too bad the keysurvey site doesn't show the current ongoing results > of the survey process as it is underway. It'd be interesting to see > it updated live... That can distort votes > Then again, it'd be even more interesting if the surveys were being done > using open source software, directly on a Fedora branded website too. ;o) Send patches. Seriously From jkeating at redhat.com Fri Oct 6 14:06:58 2006 From: jkeating at redhat.com (Jesse Keating) Date: Fri, 6 Oct 2006 10:06:58 -0400 Subject: Vote on your name choice for FC6! In-Reply-To: <45261B50.1090004@mharris.ca> References: <200610031637.15247.jkeating@redhat.com> <45261B50.1090004@mharris.ca> Message-ID: <200610061006.58947.jkeating@redhat.com> On Friday 06 October 2006 05:01, Mike A. Harris wrote: > Then again, it'd be even more interesting if the surveys were being done > using open source software, directly on a Fedora branded website too. ?;o) It slipped my mind this time around, but a lot of work was done on the Fedora account system to allow for voting, it was needed for the FESCO elections. I had completely forgotten about this and went with what RH uses for surveys like we did last time. Next time we vote on a name it will be done through the Fedora account system. -- Jesse Keating Release Engineer: Fedora -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 189 bytes Desc: not available URL: From sundaram at fedoraproject.org Fri Oct 6 14:17:58 2006 From: sundaram at fedoraproject.org (Rahul Sundaram) Date: Fri, 06 Oct 2006 19:47:58 +0530 Subject: Vote on your name choice for FC6! In-Reply-To: <200610061006.58947.jkeating@redhat.com> References: <200610031637.15247.jkeating@redhat.com> <45261B50.1090004@mharris.ca> <200610061006.58947.jkeating@redhat.com> Message-ID: <45266596.90509@fedoraproject.org> Jesse Keating wrote: > On Friday 06 October 2006 05:01, Mike A. Harris wrote: >> Then again, it'd be even more interesting if the surveys were being done >> using open source software, directly on a Fedora branded website too. ;o) > > It slipped my mind this time around, but a lot of work was done on the Fedora > account system to allow for voting, it was needed for the FESCO elections. I > had completely forgotten about this and went with what RH uses for surveys > like we did last time. Next time we vote on a name it will be done through > the Fedora account system. > Using the account's system would mean that only people who have signed the CLA would be able to vote for the name. Atleast for this release, the voting while in progress where mentioned in Planet Fedora and other places, so I believe many others who were not in the account system might have participated. If the idea is to limit the votes to only contributors, the account system would be ok, otherwise setting up something else in fedoraproject.org is better. Maybe Plone would help here. Rahul From jkeating at redhat.com Fri Oct 6 14:23:16 2006 From: jkeating at redhat.com (Jesse Keating) Date: Fri, 6 Oct 2006 10:23:16 -0400 Subject: Vote on your name choice for FC6! In-Reply-To: <45266596.90509@fedoraproject.org> References: <200610031637.15247.jkeating@redhat.com> <200610061006.58947.jkeating@redhat.com> <45266596.90509@fedoraproject.org> Message-ID: <200610061023.16813.jkeating@redhat.com> On Friday 06 October 2006 10:17, Rahul Sundaram wrote: > Using the account's system would mean that only people who have signed > the CLA would be able to vote for the name. Atleast for this release, > the voting while in progress where mentioned in Planet Fedora and other > places, so I believe many others who were not in the account system > might have participated. If the idea is to limit the votes to only > contributors, the account system would be ok, otherwise setting up > something else in fedoraproject.org is better. Maybe Plone would help here. Actually no. It is BY DESIGN that only maintainers would vote. The last release I gathered the email addresses of those on maintainer's list and sent the survey directly to them. This time around I ran out of time and just sent it to -maintainers list. People then "shared" the URL, which while I didn't say so, I didn't want to have happen. Contributing to Fedora should have some perks, one of these perks is voting on the name. I STRONGLY feel that it should be restricted to those that are contributors to the Fedora project. -- Jesse Keating Release Engineer: Fedora -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 189 bytes Desc: not available URL: From dennis at ausil.us Fri Oct 6 14:40:46 2006 From: dennis at ausil.us (Dennis Gilmore) Date: Fri, 6 Oct 2006 09:40:46 -0500 Subject: Vote on your name choice for FC6! In-Reply-To: <200610061023.16813.jkeating@redhat.com> References: <200610031637.15247.jkeating@redhat.com> <45266596.90509@fedoraproject.org> <200610061023.16813.jkeating@redhat.com> Message-ID: <200610060940.47284.dennis@ausil.us> On Friday 06 October 2006 09:23, Jesse Keating wrote: > Actually no. It is BY DESIGN that only maintainers would vote. The last > release I gathered the email addresses of those on maintainer's list and > sent the survey directly to them. This time around I ran out of time and > just sent it to -maintainers list. People then "shared" the URL, which > while I didn't say so, I didn't want to have happen. Contributing to > Fedora should have some perks, one of these perks is voting on the name. I > STRONGLY feel that it should be restricted to those that are contributors > to the Fedora project. The right place for the vote to take place is the fedora voting system that we used for fesco. Im not sure how hard it is to add a new election but it shouldnt be hard to do. we have the framework Lets use it. Dennis From jkeating at redhat.com Fri Oct 6 14:50:33 2006 From: jkeating at redhat.com (Jesse Keating) Date: Fri, 6 Oct 2006 10:50:33 -0400 Subject: Vote on your name choice for FC6! In-Reply-To: <200610060940.47284.dennis@ausil.us> References: <200610031637.15247.jkeating@redhat.com> <200610061023.16813.jkeating@redhat.com> <200610060940.47284.dennis@ausil.us> Message-ID: <200610061050.33259.jkeating@redhat.com> On Friday 06 October 2006 10:40, Dennis Gilmore wrote: > The right place for the vote to take place is the fedora voting system > ?that we used for fesco. ?Im not sure how hard ?it is to add a new election > but it shouldnt be hard to do. ?we have the framework ?Lets use it. That's what I meant. -- Jesse Keating Release Engineer: Fedora -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 189 bytes Desc: not available URL: From sundaram at fedoraproject.org Fri Oct 6 15:01:05 2006 From: sundaram at fedoraproject.org (Rahul Sundaram) Date: Fri, 06 Oct 2006 20:31:05 +0530 Subject: Vote on your name choice for FC6! In-Reply-To: <200610060940.47284.dennis@ausil.us> References: <200610031637.15247.jkeating@redhat.com> <45266596.90509@fedoraproject.org> <200610061023.16813.jkeating@redhat.com> <200610060940.47284.dennis@ausil.us> Message-ID: <45266FB1.8020901@fedoraproject.org> Dennis Gilmore wrote: > On Friday 06 October 2006 09:23, Jesse Keating wrote: > >> Actually no. It is BY DESIGN that only maintainers would vote. The last >> release I gathered the email addresses of those on maintainer's list and >> sent the survey directly to them. This time around I ran out of time and >> just sent it to -maintainers list. People then "shared" the URL, which >> while I didn't say so, I didn't want to have happen. Contributing to >> Fedora should have some perks, one of these perks is voting on the name. I >> STRONGLY feel that it should be restricted to those that are contributors >> to the Fedora project. > > The right place for the vote to take place is the fedora voting system that > we used for fesco. Im not sure how hard it is to add a new election but it > shouldnt be hard to do. we have the framework Lets use it. > Its not hard to reuse it. In fact, we already are doing so for http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Ambassadors/SteeringCommittee/Election/2006Nominations Rahul From a.badger at gmail.com Fri Oct 6 16:34:12 2006 From: a.badger at gmail.com (Toshio Kuratomi) Date: Fri, 06 Oct 2006 09:34:12 -0700 Subject: Vote on your name choice for FC6! In-Reply-To: <200610060940.47284.dennis@ausil.us> References: <200610031637.15247.jkeating@redhat.com> <45266596.90509@fedoraproject.org> <200610061023.16813.jkeating@redhat.com> <200610060940.47284.dennis@ausil.us> Message-ID: <1160152452.2647.2.camel@localhost> On Fri, 2006-10-06 at 09:40 -0500, Dennis Gilmore wrote: > On Friday 06 October 2006 09:23, Jesse Keating wrote: > > > Actually no. It is BY DESIGN that only maintainers would vote. The last > > release I gathered the email addresses of those on maintainer's list and > > sent the survey directly to them. This time around I ran out of time and > > just sent it to -maintainers list. People then "shared" the URL, which > > while I didn't say so, I didn't want to have happen. Contributing to > > Fedora should have some perks, one of these perks is voting on the name. I > > STRONGLY feel that it should be restricted to those that are contributors > > to the Fedora project. > > The right place for the vote to take place is the fedora voting system that > we used for fesco. Im not sure how hard it is to add a new election but it > shouldnt be hard to do. we have the framework Lets use it. It might take a little work to adapt the voting system for "issues" as well as "candidates" but it should be doable. I'd like to rewrite the voting system to be more flexible and have a few more options by the next FESCo Election (FC7) anyhow. -Toshio -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 189 bytes Desc: This is a digitally signed message part URL: From blizzard at redhat.com Fri Oct 6 17:21:13 2006 From: blizzard at redhat.com (Christopher Blizzard) Date: Fri, 06 Oct 2006 13:21:13 -0400 Subject: Vote on your name choice for FC6! In-Reply-To: <200610061006.58947.jkeating@redhat.com> References: <200610031637.15247.jkeating@redhat.com> <45261B50.1090004@mharris.ca> <200610061006.58947.jkeating@redhat.com> Message-ID: <45269089.9000208@redhat.com> Jesse Keating wrote: > On Friday 06 October 2006 05:01, Mike A. Harris wrote: >> Then again, it'd be even more interesting if the surveys were being done >> using open source software, directly on a Fedora branded website too. ;o) > > It slipped my mind this time around, but a lot of work was done on the Fedora > account system to allow for voting, it was needed for the FESCO elections. I > had completely forgotten about this and went with what RH uses for surveys > like we did last time. Next time we vote on a name it will be done through > the Fedora account system. I hate it. It prevents me from stuffing the ballot boxes! I think that we need to name our next release "Universal Suffrage." --Chris From rdieter at math.unl.edu Fri Oct 6 17:24:25 2006 From: rdieter at math.unl.edu (Rex Dieter) Date: Fri, 06 Oct 2006 12:24:25 -0500 Subject: libtunepimp-0.5.1 coming (soon) to Extras/FC-5 In-Reply-To: <451970E9.9040403@math.unl.edu> References: <45102EC5.9040702@math.unl.edu> <451970E9.9040403@math.unl.edu> Message-ID: <45269149.6050700@math.unl.edu> Rex Dieter wrote: > Rex Dieter wrote on 09/19: >> Just a heads up that I plan on upgrading to libtunepimp-0.5.1 (in >> Extras) sson (probably within a couple of days). It is >> API/ABI-incompatible with previous releases. AFAICT, the only >> affected Extras packages are: >> amarok (1) >> kdemultimedia-extras (mine) (2) >> kid3 (2) > > OK, development is now at libtunepimp-0.5.1. Depending on how well this > goes, I'm leaning toward a similar upgrade for the FC-5 branch as well. OK, just following through on my threat. libtunepimp-0.5.x will hit the FC-5 branch later today. -- Rex From alan at redhat.com Fri Oct 6 17:27:26 2006 From: alan at redhat.com (Alan Cox) Date: Fri, 6 Oct 2006 13:27:26 -0400 Subject: Vote on your name choice for FC6! In-Reply-To: <45269089.9000208@redhat.com> References: <200610031637.15247.jkeating@redhat.com> <45261B50.1090004@mharris.ca> <200610061006.58947.jkeating@redhat.com> <45269089.9000208@redhat.com> Message-ID: <20061006172726.GA18939@devserv.devel.redhat.com> On Fri, Oct 06, 2006 at 01:21:13PM -0400, Christopher Blizzard wrote: > I think that we need to name our next release "Universal Suffrage." Universal Sufferage might be closer From blizzard at redhat.com Fri Oct 6 17:28:46 2006 From: blizzard at redhat.com (Christopher Blizzard) Date: Fri, 06 Oct 2006 13:28:46 -0400 Subject: Vote on your name choice for FC6! In-Reply-To: <20061006172726.GA18939@devserv.devel.redhat.com> References: <200610031637.15247.jkeating@redhat.com> <45261B50.1090004@mharris.ca> <200610061006.58947.jkeating@redhat.com> <45269089.9000208@redhat.com> <20061006172726.GA18939@devserv.devel.redhat.com> Message-ID: <4526924E.7070004@redhat.com> Alan Cox wrote: > On Fri, Oct 06, 2006 at 01:21:13PM -0400, Christopher Blizzard wrote: >> I think that we need to name our next release "Universal Suffrage." > > Universal Sufferage might be closer > You know, I mis-spelled it like that the first time. :) --Chris From overholt at redhat.com Fri Oct 6 18:59:29 2006 From: overholt at redhat.com (Andrew Overholt) Date: Fri, 06 Oct 2006 14:59:29 -0400 Subject: semi-mass rebuild completed In-Reply-To: <1160071261.2970.49.camel@localhost.localdomain> References: <20061005115607.5a42c921@ludwig-alpha> <20061005153940.1811ef72@ludwig-alpha> <1160071261.2970.49.camel@localhost.localdomain> Message-ID: <1160161169.26317.19.camel@tophat.toronto.redhat.com> On Thu, 2006-05-10 at 11:01 -0700, Anthony Green wrote: > On Thu, 2006-10-05 at 15:39 +0200, Christian Iseli wrote: > > So now we have: > > https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=209451 (kawa) > > This is a gjdoc regression from a recent update. Technically the bug was always there but was masked due to the fact that it was non-BC compiled. The fix -- a simple missing Requires -- will be in tomorrow's rawhide push. Andrew "setting the record straight :)" Overholt -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 189 bytes Desc: This is a digitally signed message part URL: From jkeating at redhat.com Fri Oct 6 19:35:13 2006 From: jkeating at redhat.com (Jesse Keating) Date: Fri, 6 Oct 2006 15:35:13 -0400 Subject: Fedora Core 6 release date slip Message-ID: <200610061535.17938.jkeating@redhat.com> We regret to announce a slip of the Fedora Core 6 release schedule. A few issues are still present that we would like to see fixed before we release. - Possible ext3 corruption bug - Installs with 256megs of ram stall - Package ordering issues on multilib platforms (x86_64, ppc64) - SELinux issue with updating kernels on ppc platforms - iscsi based installations not functional There are obviously other issues and bugs still open, but these are the ones that are really "blocking" the release. To give enough time to fix these issues, we've extended the release date 6 days to Tuesday, Oct 17th. Freezes are still in place (even more so now). Your extra careful testing of rawhide over the next few days would greatly be appreciated. Keep an eye on http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Core/Schedule for any changes. -- Jesse Keating Release Engineer: Fedora -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 189 bytes Desc: not available URL: From sgrubb at redhat.com Fri Oct 6 19:58:44 2006 From: sgrubb at redhat.com (Steve Grubb) Date: Fri, 6 Oct 2006 15:58:44 -0400 Subject: Fedora Core 6 release date slip In-Reply-To: <200610061535.17938.jkeating@redhat.com> References: <200610061535.17938.jkeating@redhat.com> Message-ID: <200610061558.44801.sgrubb@redhat.com> On Friday 06 October 2006 15:35, Jesse Keating wrote: > - SELinux issue with updating kernels on ppc platforms bz 200181 was tested last night and the problem has been resolved at some point during development. Its now closed and longer holding up release. -Steve From luya_tfz at thefinalzone.com Sat Oct 7 03:29:06 2006 From: luya_tfz at thefinalzone.com (Luya Tshimbalanga) Date: Sat, 07 Oct 2006 11:29:06 +0800 Subject: Fedora Core 6 release date slip Message-ID: > > We regret to announce a slip of the Fedora Core 6 release schedule. A few > issues are still present that we would like to see fixed before we release. > Which means fixing some document erratas on installer such yum 3.0.x. http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Docs/Beats/Installer Luya Tshimbalanga -- Fedora Project Contributor http://www.fedoraproject.org/wiki/LuyaTshimbalanga http://www.fedoranews.org From luya_tfz at thefinalzone.com Sat Oct 7 03:29:30 2006 From: luya_tfz at thefinalzone.com (Luya Tshimbalanga) Date: Sat, 07 Oct 2006 11:29:30 +0800 Subject: Fedora Core 6 release date slip Message-ID: > > We regret to announce a slip of the Fedora Core 6 release schedule. A few > issues are still present that we would like to see fixed before we release. > Which means fixing some document erratas on installer such yum 3.0.x. http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Docs/Beats/Installer Luya Tshimbalanga -- Fedora Project Contributor http://www.fedoraproject.org/wiki/LuyaTshimbalanga http://www.fedoranews.org From sundaram at fedoraproject.org Sat Oct 7 03:34:31 2006 From: sundaram at fedoraproject.org (Rahul Sundaram) Date: Sat, 07 Oct 2006 09:04:31 +0530 Subject: Fedora Core 6 release date slip In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <45272047.1020101@fedoraproject.org> Luya Tshimbalanga wrote: > >> We regret to announce a slip of the Fedora Core 6 release schedule. A > few >> issues are still present that we would like to see fixed before we > release. > > Which means fixing some document erratas on installer such yum 3.0.x. > http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Docs/Beats/Installer You can change the documentation now and it will be pushed as a update and on the web errata but the ISO freeze for it hasnt changed since making any changes now would put the English content out of sync with all the translations in other languages. Rahul From luya_tfz at thefinalzone.com Sat Oct 7 04:04:51 2006 From: luya_tfz at thefinalzone.com (Luya Tshimbalanga) Date: Sat, 07 Oct 2006 12:04:51 +0800 Subject: Fedora Core 6 release date slip Message-ID: > Luya Tshimbalanga wrote: > > > >> We regret to announce a slip of the Fedora Core 6 release schedule. A > > few > >> issues are still present that we would like to see fixed before we > > release. > > > > Which means fixing some document erratas on installer such yum 3.0.x. > > http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Docs/Beats/Installer > > You can change the documentation now and it will be pushed as a update > and on the web errata but the ISO freeze for it hasnt changed since > making any changes now would put the English content out of sync with > all the translations in other languages. > Done. Too bad the new release of yum came too late after the ISO documentation froze. >_< > Rahul > > -- > Fedora-maintainers mailing list > Fedora-maintainers at redhat.com > https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-maintainers > > Luya Tshimbalanga -- Fedora Project Contributor http://www.fedoraproject.org/wiki/LuyaTshimbalanga http://www.fedoranews.org From luya_tfz at thefinalzone.com Sat Oct 7 04:05:35 2006 From: luya_tfz at thefinalzone.com (Luya Tshimbalanga) Date: Sat, 07 Oct 2006 12:05:35 +0800 Subject: Fedora Core 6 release date slip Message-ID: > Luya Tshimbalanga wrote: > > > >> We regret to announce a slip of the Fedora Core 6 release schedule. A > > few > >> issues are still present that we would like to see fixed before we > > release. > > > > Which means fixing some document erratas on installer such yum 3.0.x. > > http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Docs/Beats/Installer > > You can change the documentation now and it will be pushed as a update > and on the web errata but the ISO freeze for it hasnt changed since > making any changes now would put the English content out of sync with > all the translations in other languages. > Done. Too bad the new release of yum came too late after the ISO documentation froze. >_< > Rahul > > -- > Fedora-maintainers mailing list > Fedora-maintainers at redhat.com > https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-maintainers > > Luya Tshimbalanga -- Fedora Project Contributor http://www.fedoraproject.org/wiki/LuyaTshimbalanga http://www.fedoranews.org From luya_tfz at thefinalzone.com Sat Oct 7 04:05:48 2006 From: luya_tfz at thefinalzone.com (Luya Tshimbalanga) Date: Sat, 07 Oct 2006 12:05:48 +0800 Subject: Fedora Core 6 release date slip Message-ID: > Luya Tshimbalanga wrote: > > > >> We regret to announce a slip of the Fedora Core 6 release schedule. A > > few > >> issues are still present that we would like to see fixed before we > > release. > > > > Which means fixing some document erratas on installer such yum 3.0.x. > > http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Docs/Beats/Installer > > You can change the documentation now and it will be pushed as a update > and on the web errata but the ISO freeze for it hasnt changed since > making any changes now would put the English content out of sync with > all the translations in other languages. > Done. Too bad the new release of yum came too late after the ISO documentation froze. >_< > Rahul > > -- > Fedora-maintainers mailing list > Fedora-maintainers at redhat.com > https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-maintainers > > Luya Tshimbalanga -- Fedora Project Contributor http://www.fedoraproject.org/wiki/LuyaTshimbalanga http://www.fedoranews.org From luya_tfz at thefinalzone.com Sat Oct 7 04:07:43 2006 From: luya_tfz at thefinalzone.com (Luya Tshimbalanga) Date: Sat, 07 Oct 2006 12:07:43 +0800 Subject: Fedora Core 6 release date slip Message-ID: Sorry for the mutliple posts. has cbeen caused by the loisy webmail. > > > > Luya Tshimbalanga wrote: > > > > > >> We regret to announce a slip of the Fedora Core 6 release schedule. A > > > few > > >> issues are still present that we would like to see fixed before we > > > release. > > > > > > Which means fixing some document erratas on installer such yum 3.0.x. > > > http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Docs/Beats/Installer > > > > You can change the documentation now and it will be pushed as a update > > and on the web errata but the ISO freeze for it hasnt changed since > > making any changes now would put the English content out of sync with > > all the translations in other languages. > > > > Done. Too bad the new release of yum came too late after the ISO > documentation froze. >_< > > > > Rahul > > > > -- > > Fedora-maintainers mailing list > > Fedora-maintainers at redhat.com > > https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-maintainers > > > > > > Luya Tshimbalanga > -- > Fedora Project Contributor > http://www.fedoraproject.org/wiki/LuyaTshimbalanga > http://www.fedoranews.org > > -- > Fedora-maintainers mailing list > Fedora-maintainers at redhat.com > https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-maintainers > > Luya Tshimbalanga -- Fedora Project Contributor http://www.fedoraproject.org/wiki/LuyaTshimbalanga http://www.fedoranews.org From tibbs at math.uh.edu Sun Oct 8 05:28:41 2006 From: tibbs at math.uh.edu (Jason L Tibbitts III) Date: Sun, 08 Oct 2006 00:28:41 -0500 Subject: Finding unowned and multiply-owned directories Message-ID: I have spent a bit of time working on a utility which parses repodata (filelists.xml) and determines which directories are multiply owned and which are unowned. The result seems to work pretty well, but the full report (run over both core and extras repodata) is 30000 lines. Here's a sample: > ./dircheck -v -c filelists.xml:core -c filelists-extras.xml:extras Loading filelists.xml Loading filelists-extras.xml Finding multiply owned directories. /usr/lib/sse is multiply owned: atlas-sse (extras) atlas-sse-devel (extras) /usr/libexec/gcc/i386-redhat-linux/4.1.1 is multiply owned: gcc-gfortran (core) gcc-objc (core) gcc-c++ (core) gcc-java (core) cpp (core) gcc-gnat (core) gcc-objc++ (core) gcc (core) [...] Finding unowned directories. Odd, parent directory of /etc/init.d/aiccu is a file (maybe a symlink). [...] /etc/NetworkManager/VPN is unowned, occupied by: /etc/NetworkManager/VPN/nm-openvpn-service.name, in package NetworkManager-openvpn (extras) /etc/NetworkManager/VPN/nm-vpnc-service.name, in package NetworkManager-vpnc (extras) /etc/X11/gdm/Sessions is unowned, occupied by: /etc/X11/gdm/Sessions/Blackbox, in package blackbox (extras) /etc/X11/gdm/Sessions/Hackedbox, in package hackedbox (extras) /etc/canna is unowned, occupied by: /etc/canna/cannahost, in package Canna (extras) /etc/canna/default.canna, in package Canna (extras) /etc/diskdump is unowned, occupied by: /etc/diskdump/mail_template.us, in package diskdumputils (core) /etc/exim is unowned, occupied by: /etc/exim/exim.conf, in package exim (extras) The script is far from finished, and there's plenty that I still want to do with it. (The original intention was to check a single RPM against the repodata to see if it owned anything it wasn't supposed to.) And I'm sure there are false positives, since the "no multiply-owned directories" rule can not always be satisfied. Still, it gives a useful starting point for further investigation. I will continue working on the script and at some point would like to get it into CVS. (If someone can assist me in getting a module set up, or can let me know of an existing module where this could go, I'd be appreciative.) I can also put up a full report somewhere if there's agreement that this kind of information is useful. If it is, I suppose we could eventually generate some kind of periodic nag mail, but at this point it's _way_ too long to post. To start small with something that's almost certainly a problem, here's a (hopefully) complete list of everything that owns directories also owned by the filesystem package. To shorten the list a bit, I noted that /usr/share/man* are all owned by both man-pages and filesystem and removed them from this list. /var/lock is multiply owned: filesystem (core) lockdev (core) filesystem (core) glibc-common (core) /usr/share/man is multiply owned: xorg-x11-drv-magictouch (core) filesystem (core) xorg-x11-drv-sisusb (core) xorg-x11-drv-void (core) /usr/include is multiply owned: ncpfs (core) filesystem (core) glibc-headers (core) /usr/share/applications is multiply owned: gdm (core) system-config-httpd (core) gnome-session (core) kdelibs (core) gedit (core) xsane (core) filesystem (core) bug-buddy (core) openoffice.org-draw (core) openoffice.org-impress (core) openoffice.org-base (core) openoffice.org-math (core) openoffice.org-calc (core) openoffice.org-writer (core) gftp (core) gnome-games (core) nautilus (core) /usr/share/man/mann is multiply owned: tclx-doc (core) filesystem (core) tix-devel (core) /usr/lib is multiply owned: filesystem (core) xorg-x11-drv-i810 (core) xorg-x11-drv-i810-devel (core) /etc/skel is multiply owned: zsh (core) filesystem (core) /usr/lib/sse2 is multiply owned: filesystem (core) atlas-sse2 (extras) atlas-sse2-devel (extras) /usr/sbin is multiply owned: filesystem (core) rgmanager (core) /usr/share/man/man1 is multiply owned: man-pages (core) filesystem (core) gnome-power-manager (core) /usr/share/xsessions is multiply owned: filesystem (core) wmx (extras) /etc/X11 is multiply owned: xorg-x11-xinit (core) filesystem (core) xorg-x11-xsm (core) xorg-x11-xfs (core) /usr/lib/gcc-lib is multiply owned: filesystem (core) compat-libgcc-296 (core) /usr/share/pixmaps is multiply owned: gdm (core) gnome-applet-vm (core) gnome-applets (core) filesystem (core) tsclient (core) redhat-artwork (core) gftp (core) gnome-games (core) nautilus (core) /var/yp is multiply owned: ypserv (core) filesystem (core) ypbind (core) yp-tools (core) /usr/lib/X11 is multiply owned: xorg-x11-xfwp (core) filesystem (core) xorg-x11-filesystem (core) xorg-x11-xsm (core) - J< From nicolas.mailhot at laposte.net Sun Oct 8 09:22:22 2006 From: nicolas.mailhot at laposte.net (Nicolas Mailhot) Date: Sun, 08 Oct 2006 11:22:22 +0200 Subject: Finding unowned and multiply-owned directories In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <1160299342.3239.8.camel@rousalka.dyndns.org> Le dimanche 08 octobre 2006 ? 00:28 -0500, Jason L Tibbitts III a ?crit : > I have spent a bit of time working on a utility which parses repodata > (filelists.xml) and determines which directories are multiply owned > and which are unowned. The result seems to work pretty well, but the > full report (run over both core and extras repodata) is 30000 lines. > > Here's a sample: I can't help noticing the intended test and output is awfully similar to the one in: http://cvs.fedora.redhat.com/viewcvs/comps/comps-cleanup.xsl?root=extras Are you using the same tech or something totally different? Regards, -- Nicolas Mailhot From tibbs at math.uh.edu Sun Oct 8 15:06:37 2006 From: tibbs at math.uh.edu (Jason L Tibbitts III) Date: Sun, 08 Oct 2006 10:06:37 -0500 Subject: Finding unowned and multiply-owned directories In-Reply-To: <1160299342.3239.8.camel@rousalka.dyndns.org> (Nicolas Mailhot's message of "Sun, 08 Oct 2006 11:22:22 +0200") References: <1160299342.3239.8.camel@rousalka.dyndns.org> Message-ID: >>>>> "NM" == Nicolas Mailhot writes: NM> I can't help noticing the intended test and output is awfully NM> similar to the one in: NM> http://cvs.fedora.redhat.com/viewcvs/comps/comps-cleanup.xsl?root=extras I thought that was about comps, merging together the core and extras comps file and detecting some irregularities there. As far as I can tell it doesn't work in the realm of individual files and directories in the distro. NM> Are you using the same tech or something totally different? That's some XSL stuff, which I understand absolutely nothing about. My script is a bit of Perl. They both operate on XML, I guess, but any similarity in output is purely coincidental since I've not seen the output of comps-cleanup.xsl. I suppose its possible that someone could write some other XSL stuff which does the same thing as the Perl I cooked up, in which case it was still an interesting exercise for me. - J< From nicolas.mailhot at laposte.net Sun Oct 8 15:58:07 2006 From: nicolas.mailhot at laposte.net (Nicolas Mailhot) Date: Sun, 08 Oct 2006 17:58:07 +0200 Subject: Finding unowned and multiply-owned directories In-Reply-To: References: <1160299342.3239.8.camel@rousalka.dyndns.org> Message-ID: <1160323087.2540.13.camel@rousalka.dyndns.org> Le dimanche 08 octobre 2006 ? 10:06 -0500, Jason L Tibbitts III a ?crit : > >>>>> "NM" == Nicolas Mailhot writes: > > NM> I can't help noticing the intended test and output is awfully > NM> similar to the one in: > NM> http://cvs.fedora.redhat.com/viewcvs/comps/comps-cleanup.xsl?root=extras > > I thought that was about comps, merging together the core and extras > comps file and detecting some irregularities there. As far as I can > tell it doesn't work in the realm of individual files and directories > in the distro. One of the (many) things it does is counting packages referenced in multiple groups. You're counting files referenced in multiple packages. Same kind of processing, really. > NM> Are you using the same tech or something totally different? > My script is a bit of Perl. They both operate on XML, I guess, but any > similarity in output is purely coincidental I believe the similarity in output reflects the similarity of purpose. > since I've not seen the output of comps-cleanup.xsl. It's awfully similar to yours, only the object names change: ? Package fonts-ISO8859-2-75dpi is referenced in 10 groups: ? conditional package in group Bulgarian Support (bulgarian-support) ? conditional package in group Croatian Support (croatian-support) ? conditional package in group Czech Support (czech-support) ? conditional package in group Estonian Support (estonian-support) ? conditional package in group Hungarian Support (hungarian-support) ? conditional package in group Polish Support (polish-support) ? conditional package in group Romanian Support (romanian-support) ? conditional package in group Serbian Support (serbian-support) ? conditional package in group Slovak Support (slovak-support) ? conditional package in group Slovenian Support (slovenian-support) ? Package emacs is referenced in 2 groups: ? optional package in group Editors (editors) ? mandatory package in group Emacs (emacs) ? Package lv is referenced in 3 groups: ? default package in group Chinese Support (chinese-support) ? default package in group Japanese Support (japanese-support) ? default package in group Korean Support (korean-support) > I suppose its possible that someone > could write some other XSL stuff which does the same thing as the Perl > I cooked up, in which case it was still an interesting exercise for me. It was fun for me too, and I was just being curious;) Regards, -- Nicolas Mailhot From skvidal at linux.duke.edu Tue Oct 10 02:21:38 2006 From: skvidal at linux.duke.edu (seth vidal) Date: Mon, 09 Oct 2006 22:21:38 -0400 Subject: Finding unowned and multiply-owned directories In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <1160446898.1308.18.camel@cutter> On Sun, 2006-10-08 at 00:28 -0500, Jason L Tibbitts III wrote: > I have spent a bit of time working on a utility which parses repodata > (filelists.xml) and determines which directories are multiply owned > and which are unowned. The result seems to work pretty well, but the > full report (run over both core and extras repodata) is 30000 lines. In case no one encouraged you - get this checked in to SOMEWHERE. I'd like to see tools capable of telling us large-scale silliness in the distro or packages and things like this help us. We might not have a good place for it right now but we can make one - a general distro-tools or whatever cvs location is fine until we find a better home. Thanks for working on this, Jason. -sv From pmatilai at laiskiainen.org Tue Oct 10 05:07:11 2006 From: pmatilai at laiskiainen.org (Panu Matilainen) Date: Tue, 10 Oct 2006 08:07:11 +0300 (EEST) Subject: Finding unowned and multiply-owned directories In-Reply-To: <1160446898.1308.18.camel@cutter> References: <1160446898.1308.18.camel@cutter> Message-ID: On Mon, 9 Oct 2006, seth vidal wrote: > On Sun, 2006-10-08 at 00:28 -0500, Jason L Tibbitts III wrote: >> I have spent a bit of time working on a utility which parses repodata >> (filelists.xml) and determines which directories are multiply owned >> and which are unowned. The result seems to work pretty well, but the >> full report (run over both core and extras repodata) is 30000 lines. > > In case no one encouraged you - get this checked in to SOMEWHERE. I'd > like to see tools capable of telling us large-scale silliness in the > distro or packages and things like this help us. > > We might not have a good place for it right now but we can make one - a > general distro-tools or whatever cvs location is fine until we find a > better home. +1 It'd be nice to have all these nice distro sanity check scripts (like this, evr-comparison between branches etc) in one spot. - Panu - From grenier at cgsecurity.org Tue Oct 10 12:08:16 2006 From: grenier at cgsecurity.org (Christophe GRENIER) Date: Tue, 10 Oct 2006 14:08:16 +0200 (CEST) Subject: Finding unowned and multiply-owned directories In-Reply-To: References: <1160446898.1308.18.camel@cutter> Message-ID: On Tue, 10 Oct 2006, Panu Matilainen wrote: > On Mon, 9 Oct 2006, seth vidal wrote: > >> On Sun, 2006-10-08 at 00:28 -0500, Jason L Tibbitts III wrote: >>> I have spent a bit of time working on a utility which parses repodata >>> (filelists.xml) and determines which directories are multiply owned >>> and which are unowned. The result seems to work pretty well, but the >>> full report (run over both core and extras repodata) is 30000 lines. >> >> In case no one encouraged you - get this checked in to SOMEWHERE. I'd >> like to see tools capable of telling us large-scale silliness in the >> distro or packages and things like this help us. >> >> We might not have a good place for it right now but we can make one - a >> general distro-tools or whatever cvs location is fine until we find a >> better home. > > +1 > > It'd be nice to have all these nice distro sanity check scripts (like this, > evr-comparison between branches etc) in one spot. Checklib, http://rerun.lefant.net/checklib/howto-fix-problems.html, implements superfluous and multiple libraries detection for Debian package. Does Fedora has a similar utility ? It may be an addition to /usr/lib/rpm/brp-strip or rpmlint. Christophe ----------------------------------------------------------------- ,-~~-.___. ._. / | ' \ | |"""""""""| -= GRENIER Christophe =- ( ) 0 | | | \_/-, ,----' | | | ==== !_!--v---v--" http://www.cgsecurity.org / \-'~; |""""""""| / __/~| ._-""|| | Email: grenier at cgsecurity.org =( _____|_|____||________| ----------------------------------------------------------------- From jima at beer.tclug.org Tue Oct 10 14:41:01 2006 From: jima at beer.tclug.org (Jima) Date: Tue, 10 Oct 2006 09:41:01 -0500 (CDT) Subject: Finding unowned and multiply-owned directories In-Reply-To: <1160446898.1308.18.camel@cutter> References: <1160446898.1308.18.camel@cutter> Message-ID: On Mon, 9 Oct 2006, seth vidal wrote: > On Sun, 2006-10-08 at 00:28 -0500, Jason L Tibbitts III wrote: >> I have spent a bit of time working on a utility which parses repodata >> (filelists.xml) and determines which directories are multiply owned >> and which are unowned. The result seems to work pretty well, but the >> full report (run over both core and extras repodata) is 30000 lines. > > In case no one encouraged you - get this checked in to SOMEWHERE. I'd > like to see tools capable of telling us large-scale silliness in the > distro or packages and things like this help us. > > We might not have a good place for it right now but we can make one - a > general distro-tools or whatever cvs location is fine until we find a > better home. As I discussed briefly with Jason on Friday (right before he wrote this, I understand), I have a script that produces an ungodly amount of data to the point of weeding out duplicate files, which also has the nice side effect of making it dead simple to produce a ~63mb text file containing the file list of every package in Core and Extras (which greps real nicely!). I'm polishing it up now (adding EVR tracking, making updating the data easier), in case anyone's interested. Jima From ville.skytta at iki.fi Tue Oct 10 16:30:51 2006 From: ville.skytta at iki.fi (Ville =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Skytt=E4?=) Date: Tue, 10 Oct 2006 19:30:51 +0300 Subject: Finding unowned and multiply-owned directories In-Reply-To: References: <1160446898.1308.18.camel@cutter> Message-ID: <1160497851.3100.102.camel@viper.local> On Tue, 2006-10-10 at 08:07 +0300, Panu Matilainen wrote: > On Mon, 9 Oct 2006, seth vidal wrote: > > > We might not have a good place for it right now but we can make one - a > > general distro-tools or whatever cvs location is fine until we find a > > better home. > > +1 > > It'd be nice to have all these nice distro sanity check scripts (like > this, evr-comparison between branches etc) in one spot. http://youri.zarb.org/youri-check.html has some kind of related tests and (said to be) easily extensible framework, in case someone's interested. I've taken only a really brief look at it some time ago; unless I missed something the biggest downside is that there appears to be no repodata support in it (nor AFAIK ready-to-reuse repodata libraries available for Perl even elsewhere) so it could take a bit of work to get the basic building blocks of it to be useful for distros that use repodata repos. From rdieter at math.unl.edu Wed Oct 11 13:35:31 2006 From: rdieter at math.unl.edu (Rex Dieter) Date: Wed, 11 Oct 2006 08:35:31 -0500 Subject: qt4-4.2.0 landing in FC-5/Extras Message-ID: <452CF323.4060305@math.unl.edu> FYI, qt4-4.2.0 will be landing in FC-5/Extras later today. Rebuild will occur to enable QDbus soon (hopefully): http://bugzilla.redhat.com/207923 (dbus: update to dbus-0.62) http://bugzilla.redhat.com/207924 (qt4: enable QDbus) -- Rex From tibbs at math.uh.edu Wed Oct 11 14:18:17 2006 From: tibbs at math.uh.edu (Jason L Tibbitts III) Date: Wed, 11 Oct 2006 09:18:17 -0500 Subject: qt4-4.2.0 landing in FC-5/Extras In-Reply-To: <452CF323.4060305@math.unl.edu> (Rex Dieter's message of "Wed, 11 Oct 2006 08:35:31 -0500") References: <452CF323.4060305@math.unl.edu> Message-ID: >>>>> "RD" == Rex Dieter writes: RD> FYI, qt4-4.2.0 will be landing in FC-5/Extras later today. Do you happen to know if there's any chance that PyQt4 will build will build against it soon? - J< From jeremy at jeremysanders.net Wed Oct 11 14:21:09 2006 From: jeremy at jeremysanders.net (Jeremy Sanders) Date: Wed, 11 Oct 2006 15:21:09 +0100 (BST) Subject: qt4-4.2.0 landing in FC-5/Extras In-Reply-To: References: <452CF323.4060305@math.unl.edu> Message-ID: On Wed, 11 Oct 2006, Jason L Tibbitts III wrote: >>>>>> "RD" == Rex Dieter writes: > > RD> FYI, qt4-4.2.0 will be landing in FC-5/Extras later today. > > Do you happen to know if there's any chance that PyQt4 will build will > build against it soon? There's preliminary support for qt4-4.2 in the current snapshot tar.gz, but not in any released version. See http://www.riverbankcomputing.com/Downloads/Snapshots/PyQt4/ChangeLog -- Jeremy Sanders http://www.jeremysanders.net/ Cambridge, UK Public Key Server PGP Key ID: E1AAE053 From rdieter at math.unl.edu Wed Oct 11 14:26:30 2006 From: rdieter at math.unl.edu (Rex Dieter) Date: Wed, 11 Oct 2006 09:26:30 -0500 Subject: qt4-4.2.0 landing in FC-5/Extras In-Reply-To: References: <452CF323.4060305@math.unl.edu> Message-ID: <452CFF16.2040604@math.unl.edu> Jeremy Sanders wrote: > On Wed, 11 Oct 2006, Jason L Tibbitts III wrote: > >>>>>>> "RD" == Rex Dieter writes: >> >> RD> FYI, qt4-4.2.0 will be landing in FC-5/Extras later today. >> >> Do you happen to know if there's any chance that PyQt4 will build will >> build against it soon? > > There's preliminary support for qt4-4.2 in the current snapshot tar.gz, > but not in any released version. See > http://www.riverbankcomputing.com/Downloads/Snapshots/PyQt4/ChangeLog Yup, definitely soon-ish. -- Rex From mharris at mharris.ca Wed Oct 11 15:48:19 2006 From: mharris at mharris.ca (Mike A. Harris) Date: Wed, 11 Oct 2006 11:48:19 -0400 Subject: Vote on your name choice for FC6! In-Reply-To: <20061006102958.GA15122@devserv.devel.redhat.com> References: <200610031637.15247.jkeating@redhat.com> <45261B50.1090004@mharris.ca> <20061006102958.GA15122@devserv.devel.redhat.com> Message-ID: <452D1243.20906@mharris.ca> Alan Cox wrote: > On Fri, Oct 06, 2006 at 05:01:04AM -0400, Mike A. Harris wrote: >> 'tis too bad the keysurvey site doesn't show the current ongoing results >> of the survey process as it is underway. It'd be interesting to see >> it updated live... > > That can distort votes > >> Then again, it'd be even more interesting if the surveys were being done >> using open source software, directly on a Fedora branded website too. ;o) > > Send patches. Seriously Send patches for what? Are there bugs in any particular open source voting software which are holding up adoption of such a deployment? If so, and it's documented somewhere on the Fedora website, please point me in the right direction and I'll have a look. From aoliva at redhat.com Thu Oct 12 06:13:40 2006 From: aoliva at redhat.com (Alexandre Oliva) Date: Thu, 12 Oct 2006 03:13:40 -0300 Subject: Vote on your name choice for FC6! In-Reply-To: <45261B50.1090004@mharris.ca> (Mike A. Harris's message of "Fri, 06 Oct 2006 05:01:04 -0400") References: <200610031637.15247.jkeating@redhat.com> <45261B50.1090004@mharris.ca> Message-ID: Hi, Mike! Long time no see, On Oct 6, 2006, "Mike A. Harris" wrote: > Then again, it'd be even more interesting if the surveys were being done > using open source software, directly on a Fedora branded website too. ;o) We could use CIVS http://www.cs.cornell.edu/andru/civs.html FSFLA has been using code from it for decision-making in its workgroups. -- Alexandre Oliva http://www.lsd.ic.unicamp.br/~oliva/ Secretary for FSF Latin America http://www.fsfla.org/ Red Hat Compiler Engineer aoliva@{redhat.com, gcc.gnu.org} Free Software Evangelist oliva@{lsd.ic.unicamp.br, gnu.org} From alan at redhat.com Thu Oct 12 11:51:31 2006 From: alan at redhat.com (Alan Cox) Date: Thu, 12 Oct 2006 07:51:31 -0400 Subject: Vote on your name choice for FC6! In-Reply-To: <452D1243.20906@mharris.ca> References: <200610031637.15247.jkeating@redhat.com> <45261B50.1090004@mharris.ca> <20061006102958.GA15122@devserv.devel.redhat.com> <452D1243.20906@mharris.ca> Message-ID: <20061012115131.GA27286@devserv.devel.redhat.com> On Wed, Oct 11, 2006 at 11:48:19AM -0400, Mike A. Harris wrote: > >>Then again, it'd be even more interesting if the surveys were being done > >>using open source software, directly on a Fedora branded website too. > >>;o) > > > >Send patches. Seriously > > Send patches for what? Are there bugs in any particular open source > voting software which are holding up adoption of such a deployment? Well it may be that the software already exists and just needs integrating with one of the fedora sites - possibly not the main one because of the desire for it not to run lots of scripts From chitlesh at fedoraproject.org Thu Oct 12 17:30:59 2006 From: chitlesh at fedoraproject.org (Chitlesh GOORAH) Date: Thu, 12 Oct 2006 19:30:59 +0200 Subject: build server: timeout Message-ID: <13dbfe4f0610121030r5329b093l1ed93ca2b2abfbfd@mail.gmail.com> Hello, is there any problem with the build server ? /usr/bin/plague-client build ktechlab ktechlab-0_3-3_fc6 devel Error connecting to build server: '(110, 'Operation timed out.')' make: *** [build] Error 1 chitlesh -- http://clunixchit.blogspot.com From chitlesh at fedoraproject.org Thu Oct 12 17:55:11 2006 From: chitlesh at fedoraproject.org (Chitlesh GOORAH) Date: Thu, 12 Oct 2006 19:55:11 +0200 Subject: build server: timeout In-Reply-To: <13dbfe4f0610121030r5329b093l1ed93ca2b2abfbfd@mail.gmail.com> References: <13dbfe4f0610121030r5329b093l1ed93ca2b2abfbfd@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <13dbfe4f0610121055w6ef3b384va4bf7c87541a3a6d@mail.gmail.com> while saving the page, http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Extras/CVSSyncNeeded#preview Bad Request Your browser sent a request that this server could not understand. Apache/2.0.52 (CentOS) Server at fedora-test.fedoraproject.org Port 80 CentOS ???? for fedora ?? -- http://clunixchit.blogspot.com From wolters.liste at gmx.net Fri Oct 13 17:49:15 2006 From: wolters.liste at gmx.net (Roland Wolters) Date: Fri, 13 Oct 2006 19:49:15 +0200 Subject: Build error only on ppc Message-ID: <200610131949.24600.wolters.liste@gmx.net> Hi, I tried to build the new ktorrent version (a bugfix update), and the build failed - but only on ppc. Since I do not have any experience in this field (I do not even have a ppc machine here) I'm need some help what to do in this case. The error occured for both versions fc-5 and devel in the same way: "g++: now: No such file or directory" Build job overview: http://buildsys.fedoraproject.org/build-status/job.psp?uid=19616 http://buildsys.fedoraproject.org/build-status/job.psp?uid=19617 Build logs: http://buildsys.fedoraproject.org/logs/fedora-development-extras/19616-ktorrent-2.0.3-1.fc6/ppc/build.log http://buildsys.fedoraproject.org/logs/fedora-5-extras/19617-ktorrent-2.0.3-1.fc5/ppc/build.log Any idea what I can do/should do? The most troublesome thing is that it is a g++ error - and I thought (until today) that it works the same way independent (more or less) from the underlying architecture. Every help is appreciated. Roland -- "All terrorists should die". Nice... No. All terrorists should be brought to justice. What makes you better than them, otherwise? [...] Following the Geneva convention isn't a sign that we're wussies and girlie-men. It's a sign that we aren't afraid of the attacks, and that we can think. -- Adriano Varoli Piazza -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 189 bytes Desc: not available URL: From orion at cora.nwra.com Fri Oct 13 17:54:37 2006 From: orion at cora.nwra.com (Orion Poplawski) Date: Fri, 13 Oct 2006 11:54:37 -0600 Subject: Build error only on ppc In-Reply-To: <200610131949.24600.wolters.liste@gmx.net> References: <200610131949.24600.wolters.liste@gmx.net> Message-ID: <452FD2DD.1000307@cora.nwra.com> Roland Wolters wrote: > Hi, > > I tried to build the new ktorrent version (a bugfix update), and the build > failed - but only on ppc. Since I do not have any experience in this field (I > do not even have a ppc machine here) I'm need some help what to do in this > case. > > The error occured for both versions fc-5 and devel in the same way: > "g++: now: No such file or directory" > > Build job overview: > http://buildsys.fedoraproject.org/build-status/job.psp?uid=19616 > http://buildsys.fedoraproject.org/build-status/job.psp?uid=19617 > > Build logs: > http://buildsys.fedoraproject.org/logs/fedora-development-extras/19616-ktorrent-2.0.3-1.fc6/ppc/build.log > http://buildsys.fedoraproject.org/logs/fedora-5-extras/19617-ktorrent-2.0.3-1.fc5/ppc/build.log > > Any idea what I can do/should do? The most troublesome thing is that it is a > g++ error - and I thought (until today) that it works the same way > independent (more or less) from the underlying architecture. > > Every help is appreciated. > > Roland The "-z now" option is not supported on ppc. -- Orion Poplawski System Administrator 303-415-9701 x222 NWRA/CoRA Division FAX: 303-415-9702 3380 Mitchell Lane orion at cora.nwra.com Boulder, CO 80301 http://www.cora.nwra.com From wolters.liste at gmx.net Fri Oct 13 17:59:37 2006 From: wolters.liste at gmx.net (Roland Wolters) Date: Fri, 13 Oct 2006 19:59:37 +0200 Subject: Build error only on ppc In-Reply-To: <452FD2DD.1000307@cora.nwra.com> References: <200610131949.24600.wolters.liste@gmx.net> <452FD2DD.1000307@cora.nwra.com> Message-ID: <200610131959.47570.wolters.liste@gmx.net> Once upon a time Orion Poplawski wrote: > Roland Wolters wrote: > > The error occured for both versions fc-5 and devel in the same way: > > "g++: now: No such file or directory" > > The "-z now" option is not supported on ppc. Thanks for the quick answer - what can I do now? Should I report this upstream and ask them to fix it? Or is there a way to tell the compiler inside of the spec file that he should avoide it - in case he is on ppc? Roland -- Ich bin sch?chtern. - Warum das? Weil ich Angst habe, dass Frauen sich neben meinem Astralk?rper h?sslich f?hlen. -- Rudi -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 189 bytes Desc: not available URL: From fedora at camperquake.de Fri Oct 13 18:23:49 2006 From: fedora at camperquake.de (Ralf Ertzinger) Date: Fri, 13 Oct 2006 20:23:49 +0200 Subject: Build error only on ppc In-Reply-To: <452FD2DD.1000307@cora.nwra.com> References: <200610131949.24600.wolters.liste@gmx.net> <452FD2DD.1000307@cora.nwra.com> Message-ID: <452FD9B5.3070805@camperquake.de> Hi. Orion Poplawski schrieb: > The "-z now" option is not supported on ppc. I am a bit puzzled here. Why is that call correct syntax at all? Shouldn't that be "-Wl,-z,now" instead of "-Wl -z now"? From orion at cora.nwra.com Fri Oct 13 19:25:10 2006 From: orion at cora.nwra.com (Orion Poplawski) Date: Fri, 13 Oct 2006 13:25:10 -0600 Subject: Build error only on ppc In-Reply-To: <452FD9B5.3070805@camperquake.de> References: <200610131949.24600.wolters.liste@gmx.net> <452FD2DD.1000307@cora.nwra.com> <452FD9B5.3070805@camperquake.de> Message-ID: <452FE816.4070802@cora.nwra.com> Ralf Ertzinger wrote: > Hi. > > Orion Poplawski schrieb: > >> The "-z now" option is not supported on ppc. > > I am a bit puzzled here. Why is that call correct syntax at all? > Shouldn't that be "-Wl,-z,now" instead of "-Wl -z now"? Certainly. Roland, try this first, but I've also seen reports that -z now isn't available on ppc. Not sure it's still true tough. Otherwise, the configure code should probably be something like: case $host in ppc*) ;; *) LDFLAGS="$LDFLAGS -Wl,-z,now";; esac -- Orion Poplawski System Administrator 303-415-9701 x222 NWRA/CoRA Division FAX: 303-415-9702 3380 Mitchell Lane orion at cora.nwra.com Boulder, CO 80301 http://www.cora.nwra.com From wolters.liste at gmx.net Fri Oct 13 20:00:18 2006 From: wolters.liste at gmx.net (Roland Wolters) Date: Fri, 13 Oct 2006 22:00:18 +0200 Subject: Build error only on ppc In-Reply-To: <452FE816.4070802@cora.nwra.com> References: <200610131949.24600.wolters.liste@gmx.net> <452FD9B5.3070805@camperquake.de> <452FE816.4070802@cora.nwra.com> Message-ID: <200610132200.24032.wolters.liste@gmx.net> Once upon a time Orion Poplawski wrote: > >> The "-z now" option is not supported on ppc. > > > > I am a bit puzzled here. Why is that call correct syntax at all? > > Shouldn't that be "-Wl,-z,now" instead of "-Wl -z now"? > > Certainly. Roland, try this first, but I've also seen reports that -z > now isn't available on ppc. Not sure it's still true tough. > My problem is that I'm not familiar with fixes in such cases - how can I change that behaviour? I checked the Makefile but there was nothing like that mentioned. > Otherwise, the configure code should probably be something like: > > case $host in > ppc*) ;; > *) LDFLAGS="$LDFLAGS -Wl,-z,now";; > esac Do I have to add this directly after the %build line, before the %config line? Roland -- "Freiheit sch?tzt man nicht, indem man sie abschafft" -- Foebud-Vorstand padeluun zum Thema Video?berwachung -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 189 bytes Desc: not available URL: From orion at cora.nwra.com Fri Oct 13 20:44:14 2006 From: orion at cora.nwra.com (Orion Poplawski) Date: Fri, 13 Oct 2006 14:44:14 -0600 Subject: Build error only on ppc In-Reply-To: <200610132200.24032.wolters.liste@gmx.net> References: <200610131949.24600.wolters.liste@gmx.net> <452FD9B5.3070805@camperquake.de> <452FE816.4070802@cora.nwra.com> <200610132200.24032.wolters.liste@gmx.net> Message-ID: <452FFA9E.2020103@cora.nwra.com> Roland Wolters wrote: > My problem is that I'm not familiar with fixes in such cases - how can I > change that behaviour? I checked the Makefile but there was nothing like that > mentioned. > Well, you need to make a patch. So, $ cp ktorrent-2.0.3/configure ktorrent-2.0.3/configure.orig - Edit ktorrent-2.0.3/configure and change the LDFLAGS line to : LDFLAGS="$LDFLAGS -Wl,-z,now" $ diff -u ktorrent-2.0.3/configure.orig ktorrent-2.0.3/configure > ktorrent-2.0.3-znow.patch It should look like: --- ktorrent-2.0.3/configure.orig 2006-10-13 14:32:26.000000000 -0600 +++ ktorrent-2.0.3/configure 2006-10-13 14:34:23.000000000 -0600 @@ -31299,7 +31299,7 @@ #MIN_CONFIG(3.3) CXXFLAGS="$CXXFLAGS $KDE_DEFAULT_CXXFLAGS $USE_EXCEPTIONS $USE_RTTI" -LDFLAGS="$LDFLAGS -Wl -z now" +LDFLAGS="$LDFLAGS -Wl,-z,now" # Check whether --enable-largefile or --disable-largefile was given. - Edit ktorrent.spec and add the patch: +++ ktorrent.spec 13 Oct 2006 20:43:49 -0000 @@ -8,6 +8,7 @@ License: GPL URL: http://ktorrent.pwsp.net/ Source0: http://ktorrent.org/downloads/2.0.3/ktorrent-2.0.3.tar.gz +Patch0: ktorrent-2.0.3-znow.patch BuildRoot: %{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-root-%(%{__id_u} -n) BuildRequires: qt-devel kdelibs-devel desktop-file-utils gettext gmp-devel @@ -22,6 +23,7 @@ %prep %setup -q +%patch -p1 -b .znow %build %configure --disable-rpath - Add your patch to cvs: $ cvs add ktorrent-2.0.3-znow.patch $ cvs ci - Try it out. If it still fails on ppc, edit configure again and change the LDFLAGS line again to: case $host in ppc*) ;; *) LDFLAGS="$LDFLAGS -Wl,-z,now";; esac - Update your patch: $ diff -u ktorrent-2.0.3/configure.znow ktorrent-2.0.3/configure > ktorrent-2.0.3-znow.patch $ cvs ci Submit whatever patch works upstream. They'll need to apply it to configure.in or something else, but they should be able to figure that out. -- Orion Poplawski System Administrator 303-415-9701 x222 NWRA/CoRA Division FAX: 303-415-9702 3380 Mitchell Lane orion at cora.nwra.com Boulder, CO 80301 http://www.cora.nwra.com From wolters.liste at gmx.net Fri Oct 13 22:06:37 2006 From: wolters.liste at gmx.net (Roland Wolters) Date: Sat, 14 Oct 2006 00:06:37 +0200 Subject: Build error only on ppc In-Reply-To: <452FFA9E.2020103@cora.nwra.com> References: <200610131949.24600.wolters.liste@gmx.net> <200610132200.24032.wolters.liste@gmx.net> <452FFA9E.2020103@cora.nwra.com> Message-ID: <200610140006.42061.wolters.liste@gmx.net> Once upon a time Orion Poplawski wrote: > Roland Wolters wrote: > > My problem is that I'm not familiar with fixes in such cases - how can I > > change that behaviour? I checked the Makefile but there was nothing like > > that mentioned. > > Well, you need to make a patch. Thanks for the detailed description, the first patch already worked, I submit it upstream. Roland -- Man sagt, der Kl?gere gibt nach - und weil die Kl?geren nachgeben, herrschen die Dummen. -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 189 bytes Desc: not available URL: From tibbs at math.uh.edu Sun Oct 15 04:56:02 2006 From: tibbs at math.uh.edu (Jason L Tibbitts III) Date: Sat, 14 Oct 2006 23:56:02 -0500 Subject: Co-maintainers to assist upstreams with their packages in Extras Message-ID: It's an unfortunate fact that our sponsorship process makes things rather difficult for an upstream who would simply like to make their software available in Extras. They don't want to submit multiple packages and they aren't generally interested in doing a lot of extra community work. Some might say that if they're not interested in the community then they shouldn't be a maintainer (with all of the attendant access this brings), but I think that the gift of their software should count for something. Frankly I think that we should encourage upstream software authors to become involved with Extras instead of letting the packages sit endlessly in the purgatory of the FE-NEW queue. One proposed solution to this involves finding an existing Fedora package maintainer to co-maintain the package. This gives the benefits of bringing together someone intimately familiar with the software and someone already familiar with Fedora policies and procedures. I think it's a pretty good idea, but it does require that someone step up to co-maintain. So, would anyone object to trying this out with a couple of packages? To start, is there anyone interested in co-maintaining libssa (A C++ Object-Oriented network library)? https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=210187 You don't need to be a sponsor, just an existing maintainer. I'll do the sponsorship bit once the package review is complete. - J< From pertusus at free.fr Sun Oct 15 08:46:21 2006 From: pertusus at free.fr (Patrice Dumas) Date: Sun, 15 Oct 2006 10:46:21 +0200 Subject: Co-maintainers to assist upstreams with their packages in Extras In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20061015084621.GC2323@free.fr> On Sat, Oct 14, 2006 at 11:56:02PM -0500, Jason L Tibbitts III wrote: > It's an unfortunate fact that our sponsorship process makes things > rather difficult for an upstream who would simply like to make their > software available in Extras. They don't want to submit multiple > packages and they aren't generally interested in doing a lot of extra > community work. Some might say that if they're not interested in the > community then they shouldn't be a maintainer (with all of the > attendant access this brings), but I think that the gift of their > software should count for something. Frankly I think that we should > encourage upstream software authors to become involved with Extras > instead of letting the packages sit endlessly in the purgatory of the > FE-NEW queue. After some thinking and looking at some packages, I came to the conclusion that having upstream as primary maintainer in fedora should be avoided if possible. Indeed, there may be conflicts of interest between some upstream goals and best packaging in fedora practices. Having upstream as a co-maintainer should be, however, encouraged, if the upstream author is allready a fedora community member. > One proposed solution to this involves finding an existing Fedora > package maintainer to co-maintain the package. This gives the > benefits of bringing together someone intimately familiar with the > software and someone already familiar with Fedora policies and > procedures. I think it's a pretty good idea, but it does require that > someone step up to co-maintain. To me it would be better if the fedora community member was the primary maintainer, working in cooperation with upstream. I don't think it should be easier for upstream maintainers to be sponsored than for other maintainers. In my opinion we are not that much interested in upstream working on packaging issues, but on bugs and distribution issues. So in my opinion what is really usefull is that upstream is CC'ed to initial reviews and bugs against that package, he doesn't needs to be in the fedora community. He can subscribe to mailing lists if he wants but I can't see what we would gain in having upstream be able to change things in CVS. To put it differently I think it would be better if upstream helped fedora packagers, but not necessarily by being in the community. -- Pat From tibbs at math.uh.edu Sun Oct 15 17:24:51 2006 From: tibbs at math.uh.edu (Jason L Tibbitts III) Date: Sun, 15 Oct 2006 12:24:51 -0500 Subject: Co-maintainers to assist upstreams with their packages in Extras In-Reply-To: <20061015084621.GC2323@free.fr> (Patrice Dumas's message of "Sun, 15 Oct 2006 10:46:21 +0200") References: <20061015084621.GC2323@free.fr> Message-ID: >>>>> "PD" == Patrice Dumas writes: PD> After some thinking and looking at some packages, I came to the PD> conclusion that having upstream as primary maintainer in fedora PD> should be avoided if possible. I think you've made a distinction between "primary" and other maintainers that does not exist. All maintainers get access. Does it really matter who submits the package for review, or which addresses appear where in owners.list? Does the new package database even attempt to prioritize owners? - J< From pertusus at free.fr Sun Oct 15 18:07:12 2006 From: pertusus at free.fr (Patrice Dumas) Date: Sun, 15 Oct 2006 20:07:12 +0200 Subject: Co-maintainers to assist upstreams with their packages in Extras In-Reply-To: References: <20061015084621.GC2323@free.fr> Message-ID: <20061015180712.GA5424@free.fr> On Sun, Oct 15, 2006 at 12:24:51PM -0500, Jason L Tibbitts III wrote: > >>>>> "PD" == Patrice Dumas writes: > > I think you've made a distinction between "primary" and other > maintainers that does not exist. All maintainers get access. Does it > really matter who submits the package for review, or which addresses > appear where in owners.list? Does the new package database even > attempt to prioritize owners? I don't know but it seems to me that, at least in extras there is a primary maintainer. The one who has his name in owners.list, indeed. -- Pat From tibbs at math.uh.edu Sun Oct 15 18:26:42 2006 From: tibbs at math.uh.edu (Jason L Tibbitts III) Date: Sun, 15 Oct 2006 13:26:42 -0500 Subject: Co-maintainers to assist upstreams with their packages in Extras In-Reply-To: <20061015180712.GA5424@free.fr> (Patrice Dumas's message of "Sun, 15 Oct 2006 20:07:12 +0200") References: <20061015084621.GC2323@free.fr> <20061015180712.GA5424@free.fr> Message-ID: >>>>> "PD" == Patrice Dumas writes: PD> I don't know but it seems to me that, at least in extras there is PD> a primary maintainer. The one who has his name in owners.list, PD> indeed. And can you quantify a single operational distinction between these maintainers? They all have equal access to CVS and the buildsys. So just what difference do you think it makes? And why do you feel that upstream maintainers need to be in some sort of inferior position with respect to other maintainers? - J< From bugs.michael at gmx.net Sun Oct 15 18:43:22 2006 From: bugs.michael at gmx.net (Michael Schwendt) Date: Sun, 15 Oct 2006 20:43:22 +0200 Subject: Co-maintainers to assist upstreams with their packages in Extras In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20061015204322.095270ed.bugs.michael@gmx.net> On Sat, 14 Oct 2006 23:56:02 -0500, Jason L Tibbitts III wrote: > It's an unfortunate fact that our sponsorship process makes things > rather difficult for an upstream who would simply like to make their > software available in Extras. They don't want to submit multiple > packages and they aren't generally interested in doing a lot of extra > community work. Some might say that if they're not interested in the > community then they shouldn't be a maintainer (with all of the > attendant access this brings), but I think that the gift of their > software should count for something. Frankly I think that we should > encourage upstream software authors to become involved with Extras > instead of letting the packages sit endlessly in the purgatory of the > FE-NEW queue. > > One proposed solution to this involves finding an existing Fedora > package maintainer to co-maintain the package. This gives the > benefits of bringing together someone intimately familiar with the > software and someone already familiar with Fedora policies and > procedures. I think it's a pretty good idea, but it does require that > someone step up to co-maintain. > > So, would anyone object to trying this out with a couple of packages? > To start, is there anyone interested in co-maintaining libssa (A C++ > Object-Oriented network library)? > > https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=210187 > > You don't need to be a sponsor, just an existing maintainer. I'll do > the sponsorship bit once the package review is complete. At least a little bit of strange timing. As you probably have noticed, I've contributed a first review there just a few days ago and haven't returned since then, because I don't process the corresponding mail folder daily. I really don't mind if other reviewers/sponsors finish off such package submissions without waiting for me. That's one reason I haven't assigned this ticket to me before. I also don't mind sponsoring new contributors without beating them to do reviews or more than submitting 1-2 packages. Though, I'm also somewhat burnt by fire'n'forget packagers. With regard to the topic of "upstream package maintainers", it must be distinguished between those, who show interest in offering good packages (which are up to common packaging standards such as at Fedora Extras), and those, who only hack a spec till it builds and seems to install. The latter people should only manage to get something included in Fedora Extras when there is somebody who assists them and who makes sure the most common mistakes and pitfalls are avoided. From Axel.Thimm at ATrpms.net Sun Oct 15 19:00:30 2006 From: Axel.Thimm at ATrpms.net (Axel Thimm) Date: Sun, 15 Oct 2006 21:00:30 +0200 Subject: Co-maintainers to assist upstreams with their packages in Extras In-Reply-To: References: <20061015084621.GC2323@free.fr> Message-ID: <20061015190030.GD8727@neu.nirvana> On Sun, Oct 15, 2006 at 12:24:51PM -0500, Jason L Tibbitts III wrote: > >>>>> "PD" == Patrice Dumas writes: > > PD> After some thinking and looking at some packages, I came to the > PD> conclusion that having upstream as primary maintainer in fedora > PD> should be avoided if possible. > > I think you've made a distinction between "primary" and other > maintainers that does not exist. All maintainers get access. Does it > really matter who submits the package for review, or which addresses > appear where in owners.list? Does the new package database even > attempt to prioritize owners? Is this the upcoming model of co-maintainers? I'd prefer the model Patrice assumes, e.g. a primary one and secondary co-maintainers that *should* coordinate their actions with the primary one. Otherwise suddenly all contributors become co-maintainers of everything and we'll get trouble keeping it all in non-chaotic state. To get back to upstream vs fedora experts maintership: Assuming the co-maintainership model would be indeed hierarchical, I agree with Patrice, better to have someone knowing the details in fedora doing the packaging (in consulting with upstream), than having the package experts trying to teach upstream how to package. I guess before considering the relationship of upstream and package maintainers closer one would need to see what the real model of co-maintainership will look like. If this has already been decided on, is there some pointer to wiki/mail that explains it? Thanks! -- Axel.Thimm at ATrpms.net -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 189 bytes Desc: not available URL: From pertusus at free.fr Sun Oct 15 18:58:59 2006 From: pertusus at free.fr (Patrice Dumas) Date: Sun, 15 Oct 2006 20:58:59 +0200 Subject: Co-maintainers to assist upstreams with their packages in Extras In-Reply-To: References: <20061015084621.GC2323@free.fr> <20061015180712.GA5424@free.fr> Message-ID: <20061015185859.GB5424@free.fr> On Sun, Oct 15, 2006 at 01:26:42PM -0500, Jason L Tibbitts III wrote: > >>>>> "PD" == Patrice Dumas writes: > > And can you quantify a single operational distinction between these > maintainers? They all have equal access to CVS and the buildsys. So > just what difference do you think it makes? And why do you feel that > upstream maintainers need to be in some sort of inferior position with > respect to other maintainers? To state it otherwise it seems to me that there is someone who has the last word on changes and I think that it would be better if it wasn't the upstream, in case there are conflicting goals. -- Pat From fedora at leemhuis.info Sun Oct 15 19:25:49 2006 From: fedora at leemhuis.info (Thorsten Leemhuis) Date: Sun, 15 Oct 2006 21:25:49 +0200 Subject: Co-maintainers to assist upstreams with their packages in Extras In-Reply-To: <20061015190030.GD8727@neu.nirvana> References: <20061015084621.GC2323@free.fr> <20061015190030.GD8727@neu.nirvana> Message-ID: <45328B3D.6030504@leemhuis.info> Axel Thimm schrieb: > On Sun, Oct 15, 2006 at 12:24:51PM -0500, Jason L Tibbitts III wrote: >>>>>>> "PD" == Patrice Dumas writes: >> PD> After some thinking and looking at some packages, I came to the >> PD> conclusion that having upstream as primary maintainer in fedora >> PD> should be avoided if possible. >> I think you've made a distinction between "primary" and other >> maintainers that does not exist. All maintainers get access. Does it >> really matter who submits the package for review, or which addresses >> appear where in owners.list? Does the new package database even >> attempt to prioritize owners? > > Is this the upcoming model of co-maintainers? Well, that's not written down anywhere and I'm glad it gets discussed. Maybe a bit early, because the technical framework for co-maintainership is still far away.... Anyway: > I'd prefer the model > Patrice assumes, e.g. a primary one and secondary co-maintainers that > *should* coordinate their actions with the primary one. Otherwise > suddenly all contributors become co-maintainers of everything and > we'll get trouble keeping it all in non-chaotic state. I currently prefer a middle ground: There is one primary maintainer -- normally the one that got the packages imported. Both primarly and co-maintainers are free to commit small changes without telling the others (they maybe should wait 24 before building so the other maintainers can veto things). Medium sized or big changes need coordination between all maintainers -- e.g. also the primary maintainer should also ask his co-maintainers for permission (e.g. wait at least 72 hours before building after importing and/or send the others a mails announcing the changes). Well, those are only some rough ideas, but you'll get the idea. But it also depends on how the maintainers of a particular package want to handle it. If one primary maintainers wants full control over his package: okay, then let him if there aren't five other well know packagers that are more friendly. But I don't like such a behavior to much, and it should be the exception and strongly discouraged. > To get back to upstream vs fedora experts maintership: Assuming the > co-maintainership model would be indeed hierarchical, I agree with > Patrice, better to have someone knowing the details in fedora doing > the packaging (in consulting with upstream), than having the package > experts trying to teach upstream how to package. Well, I see no problem to give some upstream developer the primary maintainership of a package in Fedora *if* the upstream developer actually is really interested in Fedora (e.g. he uses it and is aware of the Packaging Guidelines). But that's often not the case. > I guess before considering the relationship of upstream and package > maintainers closer one would need to see what the real model of > co-maintainership will look like. If this has already been decided on, > is there some pointer to wiki/mail that explains it? Thanks! Some stuff is at: http://www.fedoraproject.org/wiki/Extras/Schedule/Comaintainership Cu thl From tibbs at math.uh.edu Sun Oct 15 20:38:29 2006 From: tibbs at math.uh.edu (Jason L Tibbitts III) Date: Sun, 15 Oct 2006 15:38:29 -0500 Subject: Co-maintainers to assist upstreams with their packages in Extras In-Reply-To: <20061015190030.GD8727@neu.nirvana> (Axel Thimm's message of "Sun, 15 Oct 2006 21:00:30 +0200") References: <20061015084621.GC2323@free.fr> <20061015190030.GD8727@neu.nirvana> Message-ID: >>>>> "AT" == Axel Thimm writes: AT> Is this the upcoming model of co-maintainers? I'd prefer the model AT> Patrice assumes, e.g. a primary one and secondary co-maintainers AT> that *should* coordinate their actions with the primary AT> one. I think it's foolish to attempt to impose that policy across every package. If the various maintainers of a particular package want to make that agreement between each other, that's fine. If the maintainers of a different package don't want to have any kind of primary maintainer, then that's fine to. AT> Otherwise suddenly all contributors become co-maintainers of AT> everything and we'll get trouble keeping it all in non-chaotic AT> state. And yet somehow we have Extras chugging along just fine with exactly that rule, and the only thing to prevent such chaos is the various agreements that maintainers make with each other. - J< From Axel.Thimm at ATrpms.net Sun Oct 15 21:49:56 2006 From: Axel.Thimm at ATrpms.net (Axel Thimm) Date: Sun, 15 Oct 2006 23:49:56 +0200 Subject: Co-maintainers to assist upstreams with their packages in Extras In-Reply-To: References: <20061015084621.GC2323@free.fr> <20061015190030.GD8727@neu.nirvana> Message-ID: <20061015214956.GE8727@neu.nirvana> On Sun, Oct 15, 2006 at 03:38:29PM -0500, Jason L Tibbitts III wrote: > AT> Otherwise suddenly all contributors become co-maintainers of > AT> everything and we'll get trouble keeping it all in non-chaotic > AT> state. > > And yet somehow we have Extras chugging along just fine with exactly > that rule, and the only thing to prevent such chaos is the various > agreements that maintainers make with each other. We do? While technically possible it is a rather clear arrangement that one doesn't simply go around changing other people's packages. -- Axel.Thimm at ATrpms.net -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 189 bytes Desc: not available URL: From triad at df.lth.se Sun Oct 15 21:54:35 2006 From: triad at df.lth.se (Linus Walleij) Date: Sun, 15 Oct 2006 23:54:35 +0200 (CEST) Subject: Co-maintainers to assist upstreams with their packages in Extras In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: I'm happily upstream and maintainer for three packages, libnjb, libmtp and gnomad2. Being part of Fedora has increased quality of all three projects, perhaps not much but to some extent. The package review process brings up many issues, and I have the privilege to avoid patching and sending patches upstream, instead I just FixIt(TM) and release a new version. When releasing upstream, the fact that the tarball also survives the build server environment is a good acceptance test that ensures release quality. Being both upstream and contributor is quite unproblematic, always was. And it's not much work at all, once you get into it. Linus From Axel.Thimm at ATrpms.net Sun Oct 15 22:24:55 2006 From: Axel.Thimm at ATrpms.net (Axel Thimm) Date: Mon, 16 Oct 2006 00:24:55 +0200 Subject: Agressive FUD by Fedora contributor (was: [Bug 210775]) In-Reply-To: <200610151852.k9FIqxUN018347@bugzilla.redhat.com> <200610151759.k9FHxe5W016619@bugzilla.redhat.com> References: <200610151852.k9FIqxUN018347@bugzilla.redhat.com> <200610151759.k9FHxe5W016619@bugzilla.redhat.com> Message-ID: <20061015222455.GF8727@neu.nirvana> There is no official Fedora codex or similar, but I'd still like to know what happens when a contributor suddenly becomes insane and is aggressively fudding other contributors like Christopher Stone does in a bugzilla report, see https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=210775 Note that I never had any direct contact with this person (or at least I don't remember). Christopher Stone wrote: > ATrpms is not compatible with Fedora (despite what they claim) and using this > repo will only mess up your system. > ATrpms overrides official Fedora RPMs and basically you end up destroying your > system. I have seen countless people come in #fedora with their messed up > systems and every time its because they have ATrpms packages installed. If your > system hasnt messed up yet, then you have been very lucky. You should > immediately remove all ATrpms you have installed on your system and replace them > with offical Fedora rpms from one of the repos mentioned above. I do not use > ATrpms so I have never had any problems myself. If there is an ATrpms package > that is not available on any of the "official" repos listed above, let us know. -- Axel.Thimm at ATrpms.net -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 189 bytes Desc: not available URL: From skvidal at linux.duke.edu Sun Oct 15 22:28:48 2006 From: skvidal at linux.duke.edu (seth vidal) Date: Sun, 15 Oct 2006 18:28:48 -0400 Subject: Agressive FUD by Fedora contributor (was: [Bug 210775]) In-Reply-To: <20061015222455.GF8727@neu.nirvana> References: <200610151852.k9FIqxUN018347@bugzilla.redhat.com> <200610151759.k9FHxe5W016619@bugzilla.redhat.com> <20061015222455.GF8727@neu.nirvana> Message-ID: <1160951328.30731.3.camel@cutter> On Mon, 2006-10-16 at 00:24 +0200, Axel Thimm wrote: > There is no official Fedora codex or similar, but I'd still like to > know what happens when a contributor suddenly becomes insane and is > aggressively fudding other contributors like Christopher Stone does in > a bugzilla report, see > https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=210775 > > Note that I never had any direct contact with this person (or at least > I don't remember). > 1. Fud is not a verb. It's not even a word. Let's stop using it as such. 2. He appears to be stating his opinion, which he is welcome to do. You can counter his opinion by responding to him but there's no 'censure' process if that's what you're gunning for. -sv From Axel.Thimm at ATrpms.net Sun Oct 15 22:37:25 2006 From: Axel.Thimm at ATrpms.net (Axel Thimm) Date: Mon, 16 Oct 2006 00:37:25 +0200 Subject: Agressive FUD by Fedora contributor In-Reply-To: <1160951328.30731.3.camel@cutter> References: <200610151852.k9FIqxUN018347@bugzilla.redhat.com> <200610151759.k9FHxe5W016619@bugzilla.redhat.com> <20061015222455.GF8727@neu.nirvana> <1160951328.30731.3.camel@cutter> Message-ID: <20061015223725.GG8727@neu.nirvana> On Sun, Oct 15, 2006 at 06:28:48PM -0400, seth vidal wrote: > On Mon, 2006-10-16 at 00:24 +0200, Axel Thimm wrote: > > There is no official Fedora codex or similar, but I'd still like to > > know what happens when a contributor suddenly becomes insane and is > > aggressively fudding other contributors like Christopher Stone does in > > a bugzilla report, see > > https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=210775 > > > > Note that I never had any direct contact with this person (or at least > > I don't remember). > > > > > 1. Fud is not a verb. It's not even a word. Let's stop using it as such. Let's not nipick, language is evolving, and unless we use it as a verb, it will never make it into the next dictionary as such. ;) Also it does sound unfair for a native speaker of a language to nitpick on s/o non-native, right? > 2. He appears to be stating his opinion, which he is welcome to do. Yes, we live in a free world, is that what you mean? I thus prefer to escalate this and state my opinion here. > You can counter his opinion by responding to him No, I won't get trolled. I'm known for getting into discussion with people, but IMHO he already crossed a line. All this FUD was dumped into bugzilla w/o any provocation or reason. Just because s/o mentioned ATrpms doesn't count as provocation. > but there's no 'censure' process if that's what you're gunning for. No, censoring is always bad, that doesn't mean that such behaviour shouldn't be counteracted. -- Axel.Thimm at ATrpms.net -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 189 bytes Desc: not available URL: From jwboyer at jdub.homelinux.org Sun Oct 15 22:36:56 2006 From: jwboyer at jdub.homelinux.org (Josh Boyer) Date: Sun, 15 Oct 2006 17:36:56 -0500 Subject: Agressive FUD by Fedora contributor (was: [Bug 210775]) In-Reply-To: <1160951328.30731.3.camel@cutter> References: <200610151852.k9FIqxUN018347@bugzilla.redhat.com> <200610151759.k9FHxe5W016619@bugzilla.redhat.com> <20061015222455.GF8727@neu.nirvana> <1160951328.30731.3.camel@cutter> Message-ID: <1160951816.18463.15.camel@vader.jdub.homelinux.org> On Sun, 2006-10-15 at 18:28 -0400, seth vidal wrote: > On Mon, 2006-10-16 at 00:24 +0200, Axel Thimm wrote: > > There is no official Fedora codex or similar, but I'd still like to > > know what happens when a contributor suddenly becomes insane and is > > aggressively fudding other contributors like Christopher Stone does in > > a bugzilla report, see > > https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=210775 > > > > Note that I never had any direct contact with this person (or at least > > I don't remember). > > > > > 1. Fud is not a verb. It's not even a word. Let's stop using it as such. > 2. He appears to be stating his opinion, which he is welcome to do. > > > You can counter his opinion by responding to him but there's no > 'censure' process if that's what you're gunning for. And I don't think there should be a 'censure' process. That would very much annoy me. josh From skvidal at linux.duke.edu Sun Oct 15 22:43:04 2006 From: skvidal at linux.duke.edu (seth vidal) Date: Sun, 15 Oct 2006 18:43:04 -0400 Subject: Agressive FUD by Fedora contributor In-Reply-To: <20061015223725.GG8727@neu.nirvana> References: <200610151852.k9FIqxUN018347@bugzilla.redhat.com> <200610151759.k9FHxe5W016619@bugzilla.redhat.com> <20061015222455.GF8727@neu.nirvana> <1160951328.30731.3.camel@cutter> <20061015223725.GG8727@neu.nirvana> Message-ID: <1160952184.30731.9.camel@cutter> On Mon, 2006-10-16 at 00:37 +0200, Axel Thimm wrote: > > 1. Fud is not a verb. It's not even a word. Let's stop using it as such. > > Let's not nipick, language is evolving, and unless we use it as a > verb, it will never make it into the next dictionary as such. ;) > Also it does sound unfair for a native speaker of a language to > nitpick on s/o non-native, right? not really. I'm helping you learn what is an incorrect use. That's my duty as a native and expert english speaker. :-D (this was humor for the humor-impaired) > > > 2. He appears to be stating his opinion, which he is welcome to do. > > Yes, we live in a free world, is that what you mean? I thus prefer to > escalate this and state my opinion here. okay - but you seem to want something other than just to state your opinion. If I misread that and you just want to state your counter opinion here then I'm sorry, have a blast. > > You can counter his opinion by responding to him > > No, I won't get trolled. I'm known for getting into discussion with > people, but IMHO he already crossed a line. All this FUD was dumped > into bugzilla w/o any provocation or reason. Just because s/o > mentioned ATrpms doesn't count as provocation. Have you read bugzilla? It's filled with all sorts of stuff I don't agree with. > > but there's no 'censure' process if that's what you're gunning for. > > No, censoring is always bad, that doesn't mean that such behaviour > shouldn't be counteracted. If that's your goal in posting here then go for it. If anyone suggests deleting his comment from bugzilla or making 'codes of conduct' for people who are arguing their opinions and/or technical issues then expect me to come back and be crankier than usual. -sv From skvidal at linux.duke.edu Sun Oct 15 22:44:10 2006 From: skvidal at linux.duke.edu (seth vidal) Date: Sun, 15 Oct 2006 18:44:10 -0400 Subject: Agressive FUD by Fedora contributor (was: [Bug 210775]) In-Reply-To: <1160951816.18463.15.camel@vader.jdub.homelinux.org> References: <200610151852.k9FIqxUN018347@bugzilla.redhat.com> <200610151759.k9FHxe5W016619@bugzilla.redhat.com> <20061015222455.GF8727@neu.nirvana> <1160951328.30731.3.camel@cutter> <1160951816.18463.15.camel@vader.jdub.homelinux.org> Message-ID: <1160952250.30731.12.camel@cutter> On Sun, 2006-10-15 at 17:36 -0500, Josh Boyer wrote: > > You can counter his opinion by responding to him but there's no > > 'censure' process if that's what you're gunning for. > > And I don't think there should be a 'censure' process. That would very > much annoy me. me too -sv From Axel.Thimm at ATrpms.net Sun Oct 15 23:09:00 2006 From: Axel.Thimm at ATrpms.net (Axel Thimm) Date: Mon, 16 Oct 2006 01:09:00 +0200 Subject: Agressive FUD by Fedora contributor In-Reply-To: <1160952184.30731.9.camel@cutter> References: <200610151852.k9FIqxUN018347@bugzilla.redhat.com> <200610151759.k9FHxe5W016619@bugzilla.redhat.com> <20061015222455.GF8727@neu.nirvana> <1160951328.30731.3.camel@cutter> <20061015223725.GG8727@neu.nirvana> <1160952184.30731.9.camel@cutter> Message-ID: <20061015230900.GI8727@neu.nirvana> On Sun, Oct 15, 2006 at 06:43:04PM -0400, seth vidal wrote: > okay - but you seem to want something other than just to state your > opinion. If I misread that and you just want to state your counter > opinion here then I'm sorry, have a blast. As I wrote, I don't know what happens when someone starts acting that way. I think this is hurting the community and creating chasms where bridges are trying to be built. And I'm not referring to any scare to non-existent technical parts of the statements made. > > > You can counter his opinion by responding to him > > > > No, I won't get trolled. I'm known for getting into discussion with > > people, but IMHO he already crossed a line. All this FUD was dumped > > into bugzilla w/o any provocation or reason. Just because s/o > > mentioned ATrpms doesn't count as provocation. > > Have you read bugzilla? It's filled with all sorts of stuff I don't > agree with. Sure, and a part of it probably stems from Jeff Johnson, whose comments escalated to the board and people wanted to withdraw his bugzilla account (I'm far from recommending doing so in this case, don't misunderstand me, I'm just showing that sometimes some reaction is needed). > > > but there's no 'censure' process if that's what you're gunning for. > > > > No, censoring is always bad, that doesn't mean that such behaviour > > shouldn't be counteracted. > > If that's your goal in posting here then go for it. > > If anyone suggests deleting his comment from bugzilla or making 'codes > of conduct' for people who are arguing their opinions and/or technical > issues then expect me to come back and be crankier than usual. Technical issues and different opinions on them is one (good) thing, but that wasn't it. Censoring is - as said - even worse. -- Axel.Thimm at ATrpms.net -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 189 bytes Desc: not available URL: From tcallawa at redhat.com Sun Oct 15 23:15:37 2006 From: tcallawa at redhat.com (Tom 'spot' Callaway) Date: Sun, 15 Oct 2006 18:15:37 -0500 Subject: Agressive FUD by Fedora contributor (was: [Bug 210775]) In-Reply-To: <20061015222455.GF8727@neu.nirvana> References: <200610151852.k9FIqxUN018347@bugzilla.redhat.com> <200610151759.k9FHxe5W016619@bugzilla.redhat.com> <20061015222455.GF8727@neu.nirvana> Message-ID: <1160954137.14932.37.camel@localhost.localdomain> On Mon, 2006-10-16 at 00:24 +0200, Axel Thimm wrote: > Christopher Stone wrote: > > ATrpms is not compatible with Fedora (despite what they claim) and using this > > repo will only mess up your system. > > > ATrpms overrides official Fedora RPMs and basically you end up destroying your > > system. Well, forgive my ignorance here, but does ATrpms override any FC or FE RPMs? If so, why? ~spot -- Tom "spot" Callaway || Red Hat || Fedora || Aurora || GPG ID: 93054260 "We must not confuse dissent with disloyalty. We must remember always that accusation is not proof and that conviction depends upon evidence and due process of law. We will not walk in fear, one of another. We will not be driven by fear into an age of unreason, if we dig deep in our history and our doctrine, and remember that we are not descended from fearful men -- not from men who feared to write, to speak, to associate and to defend causes that were, for the moment, unpopular." -- Edward R. Murrow, March 9, 1954 From chris.stone at gmail.com Sun Oct 15 23:14:46 2006 From: chris.stone at gmail.com (Christopher Stone) Date: Sun, 15 Oct 2006 16:14:46 -0700 Subject: Agressive FUD by Fedora contributor In-Reply-To: <20061015230900.GI8727@neu.nirvana> References: <200610151852.k9FIqxUN018347@bugzilla.redhat.com> <200610151759.k9FHxe5W016619@bugzilla.redhat.com> <20061015222455.GF8727@neu.nirvana> <1160951328.30731.3.camel@cutter> <20061015223725.GG8727@neu.nirvana> <1160952184.30731.9.camel@cutter> <20061015230900.GI8727@neu.nirvana> Message-ID: I'm not sure what you are trying to accomplish here Axel. You seem to be completely ignoring the **FACT** that Fedora users who use ATrpms end up with messed up systems in which they can no longer properly upgrade using yum. Why don't we change this from a "this guy is spreading FUD" discussion, to an actual technical discussion about the fact that some repos replace, upgrade or obsolete packages already found in Core/Extras. Or would you prefer to ingore the actual underlying technical issue we (not just me) are trying to get through to you. From alan at redhat.com Sun Oct 15 23:17:19 2006 From: alan at redhat.com (Alan Cox) Date: Sun, 15 Oct 2006 19:17:19 -0400 Subject: Agressive FUD by Fedora contributor In-Reply-To: <1160952184.30731.9.camel@cutter> References: <200610151852.k9FIqxUN018347@bugzilla.redhat.com> <200610151759.k9FHxe5W016619@bugzilla.redhat.com> <20061015222455.GF8727@neu.nirvana> <1160951328.30731.3.camel@cutter> <20061015223725.GG8727@neu.nirvana> <1160952184.30731.9.camel@cutter> Message-ID: <20061015231719.GA20785@devserv.devel.redhat.com> On Sun, Oct 15, 2006 at 06:43:04PM -0400, seth vidal wrote: > duty as a native and expert english speaker. :-D (this was humor for the > humor-impaired) humOUr if you are an native speaker, humor if you are a funny imitator from across the pond. > If anyone suggests deleting his comment from bugzilla or making 'codes > of conduct' for people who are arguing their opinions and/or technical > issues then expect me to come back and be crankier than usual. Unbuntu has a relatively relaxed code of conduct (well more 'guidelines of conduct') and it seems to work very well. I wouldn't dismiss it out of hand although hopefully we don't need to take such a step anyway From alan at redhat.com Sun Oct 15 23:19:33 2006 From: alan at redhat.com (Alan Cox) Date: Sun, 15 Oct 2006 19:19:33 -0400 Subject: Agressive FUD by Fedora contributor (was: [Bug 210775]) In-Reply-To: <1160954137.14932.37.camel@localhost.localdomain> References: <200610151852.k9FIqxUN018347@bugzilla.redhat.com> <200610151759.k9FHxe5W016619@bugzilla.redhat.com> <20061015222455.GF8727@neu.nirvana> <1160954137.14932.37.camel@localhost.localdomain> Message-ID: <20061015231933.GC20785@devserv.devel.redhat.com> On Sun, Oct 15, 2006 at 06:15:37PM -0500, Tom 'spot' Callaway wrote: > Well, forgive my ignorance here, but does ATrpms override any FC or FE > RPMs? If so, why? It strikes me that this is fixable in software whether intentional or not by teaching yum that repository 'x' must not contain packages that clash with repository 'y' and if they do to skip it for now with a warning. From skvidal at linux.duke.edu Sun Oct 15 23:26:11 2006 From: skvidal at linux.duke.edu (seth vidal) Date: Sun, 15 Oct 2006 19:26:11 -0400 Subject: Agressive FUD by Fedora contributor (was: [Bug 210775]) In-Reply-To: <20061015231933.GC20785@devserv.devel.redhat.com> References: <200610151852.k9FIqxUN018347@bugzilla.redhat.com> <200610151759.k9FHxe5W016619@bugzilla.redhat.com> <20061015222455.GF8727@neu.nirvana> <1160954137.14932.37.camel@localhost.localdomain> <20061015231933.GC20785@devserv.devel.redhat.com> Message-ID: <1160954771.30731.14.camel@cutter> On Sun, 2006-10-15 at 19:19 -0400, Alan Cox wrote: > On Sun, Oct 15, 2006 at 06:15:37PM -0500, Tom 'spot' Callaway wrote: > > Well, forgive my ignorance here, but does ATrpms override any FC or FE > > RPMs? If so, why? > > It strikes me that this is fixable in software whether intentional or not > by teaching yum that repository 'x' must not contain packages that clash > with repository 'y' and if they do to skip it for now with a warning. > There's a plugin called 'protectbase' which does just that. -sv From skvidal at linux.duke.edu Sun Oct 15 23:27:56 2006 From: skvidal at linux.duke.edu (seth vidal) Date: Sun, 15 Oct 2006 19:27:56 -0400 Subject: Agressive FUD by Fedora contributor In-Reply-To: <20061015231719.GA20785@devserv.devel.redhat.com> References: <200610151852.k9FIqxUN018347@bugzilla.redhat.com> <200610151759.k9FHxe5W016619@bugzilla.redhat.com> <20061015222455.GF8727@neu.nirvana> <1160951328.30731.3.camel@cutter> <20061015223725.GG8727@neu.nirvana> <1160952184.30731.9.camel@cutter> <20061015231719.GA20785@devserv.devel.redhat.com> Message-ID: <1160954876.30731.17.camel@cutter> On Sun, 2006-10-15 at 19:17 -0400, Alan Cox wrote: > On Sun, Oct 15, 2006 at 06:43:04PM -0400, seth vidal wrote: > > duty as a native and expert english speaker. :-D (this was humor for the > > humor-impaired) > > humOUr if you are an native speaker, humor if you are a funny imitator from > across the pond. How dare you as a native english speaker chastise me, a non-native speaker (obviously) with a misspelling?! I'm shocked! just shocked! > Unbuntu has a relatively relaxed code of conduct (well more 'guidelines > of conduct') and it seems to work very well. I wouldn't dismiss it out of > hand although hopefully we don't need to take such a step anyway So far I haven't seen anything from this thread that would violate a code of conduct. -sv From Axel.Thimm at ATrpms.net Sun Oct 15 23:40:51 2006 From: Axel.Thimm at ATrpms.net (Axel Thimm) Date: Mon, 16 Oct 2006 01:40:51 +0200 Subject: Agressive FUD by Fedora contributor In-Reply-To: <1160954137.14932.37.camel@localhost.localdomain> References: <200610151852.k9FIqxUN018347@bugzilla.redhat.com> <200610151759.k9FHxe5W016619@bugzilla.redhat.com> <20061015222455.GF8727@neu.nirvana> <1160954137.14932.37.camel@localhost.localdomain> Message-ID: <20061015234051.GK8727@neu.nirvana> On Sun, Oct 15, 2006 at 06:15:37PM -0500, Tom 'spot' Callaway wrote: > On Mon, 2006-10-16 at 00:24 +0200, Axel Thimm wrote: > > > Christopher Stone wrote: > > > ATrpms is not compatible with Fedora (despite what they claim) and using this > > > repo will only mess up your system. > > > > > ATrpms overrides official Fedora RPMs and basically you end up destroying your > > > system. > > Well, forgive my ignorance here, but does ATrpms override any FC or FE > RPMs? If so, why? Apart from packages that existed at ATrpms to start with there are two other cases: o Historically (e.g. RHL7.3 upwards) there were many bug fixes (like the rpm rpms) required and crippled packages needed different build options or more (non-existing) BRs to offer functionality needed by other packages. o Packages required for non-Fedora distributions, e.g. RHEL4 and RHEL3. But modern Fedora has due to a faster pace in development and a richer set of packages undone most of the issues, allowing ATrpms to reduce the set of packages overlapping with Core. Still some attempts to cooperate in completely reducing them didn't get the feedback they needed, e.g. last year on fedora-devel-list http://www.redhat.com/archives/rhl-devel-list/2005-December/msg01345.html But that is not about a technical part, e.g. "ATrpms replaces Core packages", but the way someone not ever having used ATrpms (as he writes) and having picked up something only from hearsay is fudding about ATrpms and trying to scare people away from it just because they mentioned it (the short version of the FUD is "every system enabling ATrpms is doomed, if it still works it's out of pure luck"). The fact is that the repos are approaching each other and that he's just throwing mud to any such effords. It's unjustified, unfair to the people involved and demotivating. -- Axel.Thimm at ATrpms.net -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 189 bytes Desc: not available URL: From chris.stone at gmail.com Sun Oct 15 23:51:35 2006 From: chris.stone at gmail.com (Christopher Stone) Date: Sun, 15 Oct 2006 16:51:35 -0700 Subject: Agressive FUD by Fedora contributor In-Reply-To: <20061015234051.GK8727@neu.nirvana> References: <200610151852.k9FIqxUN018347@bugzilla.redhat.com> <200610151759.k9FHxe5W016619@bugzilla.redhat.com> <20061015222455.GF8727@neu.nirvana> <1160954137.14932.37.camel@localhost.localdomain> <20061015234051.GK8727@neu.nirvana> Message-ID: On 10/15/06, Axel Thimm wrote: > But that is not about a technical part, e.g. "ATrpms replaces Core > packages", but the way someone not ever having used ATrpms (as he > writes) and having picked up something only from hearsay is fudding > about ATrpms and trying to scare people away from it just because they > mentioned it (the short version of the FUD is "every system enabling > ATrpms is doomed, if it still works it's out of pure luck"). Actually, I did once use ATrpms a long time ago, and I myself ended up with many update problems and issues so I removed the repo and havn't gone back since. I think there were maybe one or two packages I still used (which I installed using rpm instead of yum), but have since replaced as they came available in Extras. > The fact is that the repos are approaching each other and that he's > just throwing mud to any such effords. It's unjustified, unfair to the > people involved and demotivating. The reason why I am "mud slinging" is because I have seen literally dozens of people come in #fedora on IRC trying to figure out why yum update is no longer working for them and literally 99% of the time it is due to the fact that they have enabled the ATrpms repo and it has overridden FC/FE packages. This is frustrating. This is VERY frustrating. It is so damn frustrating that I end up "mud-slinging" ATrpms. I am VERY glad that this issue has finally been brought up with the community, and hopefully we can get it resolved. I would love to see ATrpms remove all packages that are already present in FC/FE, and hopefully even remove packages already found in Livna as well. If there are specific technical issues with some packages that are preventing you from doing this, please let us know. From Axel.Thimm at ATrpms.net Sun Oct 15 23:53:10 2006 From: Axel.Thimm at ATrpms.net (Axel Thimm) Date: Mon, 16 Oct 2006 01:53:10 +0200 Subject: Agressive FUD by Fedora contributor In-Reply-To: References: <200610151852.k9FIqxUN018347@bugzilla.redhat.com> <200610151759.k9FHxe5W016619@bugzilla.redhat.com> <20061015222455.GF8727@neu.nirvana> <1160951328.30731.3.camel@cutter> <20061015223725.GG8727@neu.nirvana> <1160952184.30731.9.camel@cutter> <20061015230900.GI8727@neu.nirvana> Message-ID: <20061015235310.GL8727@neu.nirvana> On Sun, Oct 15, 2006 at 04:14:46PM -0700, Christopher Stone wrote: > I'm not sure what you are trying to accomplish here Axel. It's not about me, but about what you are trying to do. > You seem to be completely ignoring the **FACT** that Fedora users > who use ATrpms end up with messed up systems in which they can no > longer properly upgrade using yum. That is what I call FUD. I count a dozen thousand unique daily visitors on ATrpms' master mirror and if one could get metrics from the other mirrors there would be quite a huge number. So there are ~ 15000 users with broken systems daily? Or are do they all belong to the category "have been very lucky" as you write in bugzilla? > Why don't we change this from a "this guy is spreading FUD" > discussion, to an actual technical discussion No, I won't accept that what you bugzilla'd had anything to do with any of your technical insight on the matter (you never even used ATrpms as you wrote, so you have no idea if there are issues, but still "countless" users are consulting you). You won't get away with trying to divert to technical matters, now. I'm always for discussing technical stuff, perhaps too much for some people, but this is about you spreading FUD against a fellow contributor. > Or would you prefer to ingore the actual underlying technical issue > we (not just me) are trying to get through to you. Don't troll. -- Axel.Thimm at ATrpms.net -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 189 bytes Desc: not available URL: From chris.stone at gmail.com Mon Oct 16 00:13:14 2006 From: chris.stone at gmail.com (Christopher Stone) Date: Sun, 15 Oct 2006 17:13:14 -0700 Subject: Agressive FUD by Fedora contributor In-Reply-To: <20061015235310.GL8727@neu.nirvana> References: <200610151852.k9FIqxUN018347@bugzilla.redhat.com> <200610151759.k9FHxe5W016619@bugzilla.redhat.com> <20061015222455.GF8727@neu.nirvana> <1160951328.30731.3.camel@cutter> <20061015223725.GG8727@neu.nirvana> <1160952184.30731.9.camel@cutter> <20061015230900.GI8727@neu.nirvana> <20061015235310.GL8727@neu.nirvana> Message-ID: On 10/15/06, Axel Thimm wrote: > On Sun, Oct 15, 2006 at 04:14:46PM -0700, Christopher Stone wrote: > > I'm not sure what you are trying to accomplish here Axel. > > It's not about me, but about what you are trying to do. > > > You seem to be completely ignoring the **FACT** that Fedora users > > who use ATrpms end up with messed up systems in which they can no > > longer properly upgrade using yum. > > That is what I call FUD. I count a dozen thousand unique daily > visitors on ATrpms' master mirror and if one could get metrics from > the other mirrors there would be quite a huge number. So there are ~ > 15000 users with broken systems daily? Or are do they all belong to > the category "have been very lucky" as you write in bugzilla? Do you think I am spreading lies here? Let me describe my latest issue with ATrpms which I had to deal with not more than a few weeks ago: I work closely with an upstream developer on several of the packages I maintain for Fedora. Upstream made a build farm for their packages which recently was breaking with Fedora. They asked me to fix the problem and it was due to the fact that they were using apt-get and ATrpms. IIRC, I believe it was the "nx" package that was causing problems for them, I'm not sure how nx was getting installed, perhaps as some dependency for another package. But to make a long story short, disabling ATrpms and using yum instead of apt-get solved their problem. So I don't see how you can call this "FUD" when I *still* have to deal with problems stemming from the ATrpms repo. From chris.stone at gmail.com Mon Oct 16 01:15:56 2006 From: chris.stone at gmail.com (Christopher Stone) Date: Sun, 15 Oct 2006 18:15:56 -0700 Subject: Agressive FUD by Fedora contributor In-Reply-To: References: <200610151852.k9FIqxUN018347@bugzilla.redhat.com> <200610151759.k9FHxe5W016619@bugzilla.redhat.com> <20061015222455.GF8727@neu.nirvana> <1160951328.30731.3.camel@cutter> <20061015223725.GG8727@neu.nirvana> <1160952184.30731.9.camel@cutter> <20061015230900.GI8727@neu.nirvana> <20061015235310.GL8727@neu.nirvana> Message-ID: As an experiment, I added the ATrpms repository to my /etc/yum.repos.d/ directory and ran yum check-update. In theory, adding a new repository and running check-update should not list ANY packages, however this is what check-update listed as needing updating: alsa-lib.i386 1.0.13-32.fc5.at atrpms alsa-lib.x86_64 1.0.13-32.fc5.at atrpms alsa-lib-devel.x86_64 1.0.13-32.fc5.at atrpms bash-completion.noarch 20060301-10.at atrpms directfb.x86_64 0.9.25.1-9.rhfc5.at atrpms fetchmail.x86_64 6.3.4-1.1_6.fc5.at atrpms ffmpeg.x86_64 0.4.9-17_r6524.fc5.at atrpms fftw.x86_64 3.1.2-11.fc5.at atrpms lame.x86_64 3.96.1-13.fc5.at atrpms libdvdcss.x86_64 1.2.9-3.fc5.at atrpms libgcrypt.x86_64 1.2.3-13.fc5.at atrpms libgcrypt.i386 1.2.3-13.fc5.at atrpms libgcrypt-devel.x86_64 1.2.3-13.fc5.at atrpms libgpg-error.i386 1.4-9.fc5.at atrpms libgpg-error.x86_64 1.4-9.fc5.at atrpms libgpg-error-devel.x86_64 1.4-9.fc5.at atrpms libmad.x86_64 0.15.1b-3.fc5.at atrpms libquicktime.x86_64 0.9.9-16.fc5.at atrpms libsndfile.x86_64 1.0.16-8.fc5.at atrpms libusb.x86_64 0.1.12-5.0.99.fc5.at atrpms libusb-devel.x86_64 0.1.12-5.0.99.fc5.at atrpms lirc.x86_64 0.8.1-62_cvs20060930.f atrpms lm_sensors.i386 2.10.1-45.fc5.at atrpms lm_sensors.x86_64 2.10.1-45.fc5.at atrpms mjpegtools.x86_64 1.9.1-14_cvs20061009.f atrpms mpeg2dec.x86_64 0.4.0b-2.fc5.at atrpms mplayer.x86_64 4:1.0-56_r19856.fc5.at atrpms mplayer-fonts.noarch 4:1.0-7.at atrpms mplayer-skins.noarch 4:1.0-pre3_13.at atrpms mplayerplug-in.x86_64 3.31-29.fc5.at atrpms openct.x86_64 0.6.9-7.fc5.at atrpms opensc.x86_64 0.11.1-7.fc5.at atrpms perl-Pod-POM.noarch 0.17-6.fc5.at atrpms perl-Text-Autoformat.noarch 1.13-4.fc5.at atrpms perl-Text-Reform.noarch 1.11-6.fc5.at atrpms perl-XML-XPath.noarch 1.13-5.fc5.at atrpms pinentry.x86_64 0.7.2-12.fc5.at atrpms pm-utils.x86_64 0.15-1.5cubbi_suspend2 atrpms sgml-common.noarch 0.6.3-17_12.at atrpms spamassassin.x86_64 3.1.7-36.fc5.at atrpms transcode.x86_64 1.0.2-27.fc5.at atrpms xml-common.noarch 0.6.3-17_12.at atrpms xvidcore.x86_64 1.1.0-9.fc5.at atrpms I'm not sure how many of these packages are actually FC/FE packages, but it goes to show the extent of package conflicts between ATrpms and other repositories. From jwboyer at jdub.homelinux.org Mon Oct 16 02:11:27 2006 From: jwboyer at jdub.homelinux.org (Josh Boyer) Date: Sun, 15 Oct 2006 21:11:27 -0500 Subject: Agressive FUD by Fedora contributor In-Reply-To: <20061015230900.GI8727@neu.nirvana> References: <200610151852.k9FIqxUN018347@bugzilla.redhat.com> <200610151759.k9FHxe5W016619@bugzilla.redhat.com> <20061015222455.GF8727@neu.nirvana> <1160951328.30731.3.camel@cutter> <20061015223725.GG8727@neu.nirvana> <1160952184.30731.9.camel@cutter> <20061015230900.GI8727@neu.nirvana> Message-ID: <1160964687.18463.18.camel@vader.jdub.homelinux.org> On Mon, 2006-10-16 at 01:09 +0200, Axel Thimm wrote: > On Sun, Oct 15, 2006 at 06:43:04PM -0400, seth vidal wrote: > > okay - but you seem to want something other than just to state your > > opinion. If I misread that and you just want to state your counter > > opinion here then I'm sorry, have a blast. > > As I wrote, I don't know what happens when someone starts acting that > way. I think this is hurting the community and creating chasms where > bridges are trying to be built. And I'm not referring to any > scare to non-existent technical parts of the statements made. > > > > > You can counter his opinion by responding to him > > > > > > No, I won't get trolled. I'm known for getting into discussion with > > > people, but IMHO he already crossed a line. All this FUD was dumped > > > into bugzilla w/o any provocation or reason. Just because s/o > > > mentioned ATrpms doesn't count as provocation. > > > > Have you read bugzilla? It's filled with all sorts of stuff I don't > > agree with. > > Sure, and a part of it probably stems from Jeff Johnson, whose > comments escalated to the board and people wanted to withdraw his > bugzilla account (I'm far from recommending doing so in this case, > don't misunderstand me, I'm just showing that sometimes some reaction > is needed). Not quite. I believe it was more the fact that he was closing bugs when they shouldn't be, rather than his comments. That's different than what is occurring here. josh From rdieter at math.unl.edu Mon Oct 16 05:10:07 2006 From: rdieter at math.unl.edu (Rex Dieter) Date: Mon, 16 Oct 2006 00:10:07 -0500 Subject: Agressive FUD by Fedora contributor In-Reply-To: References: <200610151852.k9FIqxUN018347@bugzilla.redhat.com> <200610151759.k9FHxe5W016619@bugzilla.redhat.com> <20061015222455.GF8727@neu.nirvana> <1160951328.30731.3.camel@cutter> <20061015223725.GG8727@neu.nirvana> <1160952184.30731.9.camel@cutter> <20061015230900.GI8727@neu.nirvana> <20061015235310.GL8727@neu.nirvana> Message-ID: <4533142F.7090607@math.unl.edu> Christopher Stone wrote: > But to make a long story short, > disabling ATrpms and using yum instead of apt-get solved their > problem. So I don't see how you can call this "FUD" when I *still* > have to deal with problems stemming from the ATrpms repo. IMO, If you have issues, take it up with Axel and/or an ATrpms mailing list, but such commentary has no place in any *fedora* bugzilla (nor on this mailing list). And please try to remember, we're trying to bring people together here, not divide them. -- Rex From skvidal at linux.duke.edu Mon Oct 16 04:58:56 2006 From: skvidal at linux.duke.edu (seth vidal) Date: Mon, 16 Oct 2006 00:58:56 -0400 Subject: Agressive FUD by Fedora contributor In-Reply-To: <4533142F.7090607@math.unl.edu> References: <200610151852.k9FIqxUN018347@bugzilla.redhat.com> <200610151759.k9FHxe5W016619@bugzilla.redhat.com> <20061015222455.GF8727@neu.nirvana> <1160951328.30731.3.camel@cutter> <20061015223725.GG8727@neu.nirvana> <1160952184.30731.9.camel@cutter> <20061015230900.GI8727@neu.nirvana> <20061015235310.GL8727@neu.nirvana> <4533142F.7090607@math.unl.edu> Message-ID: <1160974736.30731.22.camel@cutter> On Mon, 2006-10-16 at 00:10 -0500, Rex Dieter wrote: > Christopher Stone wrote: > > But to make a long story short, > > disabling ATrpms and using yum instead of apt-get solved their > > problem. So I don't see how you can call this "FUD" when I *still* > > have to deal with problems stemming from the ATrpms repo. > > IMO, If you have issues, take it up with Axel and/or an ATrpms mailing > list, but such commentary has no place in any *fedora* bugzilla (nor on > this mailing list). And please try to remember, we're trying to bring > people together here, not divide them. Hold on. If someone has hosed up their system using ANY means why is not appropriate to explain that in bugzilla? We go on screeds about nvidia or ati drivers in bugzilla pretty commonly. How is what Christopher did all that different? -sv From chris.stone at gmail.com Mon Oct 16 05:00:06 2006 From: chris.stone at gmail.com (Christopher Stone) Date: Sun, 15 Oct 2006 22:00:06 -0700 Subject: Agressive FUD by Fedora contributor In-Reply-To: <4533142F.7090607@math.unl.edu> References: <200610151852.k9FIqxUN018347@bugzilla.redhat.com> <20061015222455.GF8727@neu.nirvana> <1160951328.30731.3.camel@cutter> <20061015223725.GG8727@neu.nirvana> <1160952184.30731.9.camel@cutter> <20061015230900.GI8727@neu.nirvana> <20061015235310.GL8727@neu.nirvana> <4533142F.7090607@math.unl.edu> Message-ID: On 10/15/06, Rex Dieter wrote: > Christopher Stone wrote: > > But to make a long story short, > > disabling ATrpms and using yum instead of apt-get solved their > > problem. So I don't see how you can call this "FUD" when I *still* > > have to deal with problems stemming from the ATrpms repo. > > IMO, If you have issues, take it up with Axel and/or an ATrpms mailing > list, but such commentary has no place in any *fedora* bugzilla (nor on > this mailing list). And please try to remember, we're trying to bring > people together here, not divide them. Excuse me? But what is the point? ATrpms has been overriding FC/FE packages since the beginning of time and I'm sure it has been brought up many many times before. What good is it going to do if I bring it up once again? As you can clearly see from this thread Axel is completely ignoring the fact this his packages break Fedora user's systems and is trying to concentrate on my commentary which is in no way unacceptable for bugzilla or this mailing list like you claim. The simple fact of the matter is that ATrpms breaks your system and Axel refuses to acknowledge the fact, and he also seems to not want to make any effort to fix the problem(s) as far as I can tell from what's been said so far in this thread. I'm sorry if this makes you upset, but it happens to be the truth. From skvidal at linux.duke.edu Mon Oct 16 05:10:11 2006 From: skvidal at linux.duke.edu (seth vidal) Date: Mon, 16 Oct 2006 01:10:11 -0400 Subject: Agressive FUD by Fedora contributor In-Reply-To: References: <200610151852.k9FIqxUN018347@bugzilla.redhat.com> <20061015222455.GF8727@neu.nirvana> <1160951328.30731.3.camel@cutter> <20061015223725.GG8727@neu.nirvana> <1160952184.30731.9.camel@cutter> <20061015230900.GI8727@neu.nirvana> <20061015235310.GL8727@neu.nirvana> <4533142F.7090607@math.unl.edu> Message-ID: <1160975411.30731.29.camel@cutter> On Sun, 2006-10-15 at 22:00 -0700, Christopher Stone wrote: > > The simple fact of the matter is that ATrpms breaks your system and > Axel refuses to acknowledge the fact, and he also seems to not want to > make any effort to fix the problem(s) as far as I can tell from what's > been said so far in this thread. okay - let's settle this down a bit: It's not a 'simple fact' that atrpms breaks your system. It is true that atrpms has packages which update/replace those in core. Doing so doesn't necessarily mean that your system is broken. It does make it harder to track down problems b/c a user is not using the base you think s/he is. So your claim would be better received if it were: - ATrpms contains packages which update or replace packages in core - These replacements make debugging problems more difficult - Telling a user to remove those packages is a valid mechanism for simplifying a problem. So let's lose the rhetoric on all sides. Axel is not trying to break people's systems and there was too much invective in your post. now, can we get back to actually solving the problems? -sv From chris.stone at gmail.com Mon Oct 16 05:20:11 2006 From: chris.stone at gmail.com (Christopher Stone) Date: Sun, 15 Oct 2006 22:20:11 -0700 Subject: Agressive FUD by Fedora contributor In-Reply-To: <1160975411.30731.29.camel@cutter> References: <200610151852.k9FIqxUN018347@bugzilla.redhat.com> <20061015223725.GG8727@neu.nirvana> <1160952184.30731.9.camel@cutter> <20061015230900.GI8727@neu.nirvana> <20061015235310.GL8727@neu.nirvana> <4533142F.7090607@math.unl.edu> <1160975411.30731.29.camel@cutter> Message-ID: On 10/15/06, seth vidal wrote: > On Sun, 2006-10-15 at 22:00 -0700, Christopher Stone wrote: > Axel is not trying to break people's systems and there was too much > invective in your post. I did not mean to imply he is *trying* to break people's systems. I am only stating what I know through experience, and this is that people who have used ATrpms (including myself) have had problems with yum. It is pretty much the standard answer in #fedora to tell someone to remove ATrpms when diagnosing a problem, and it is a shame that this is the case. So let me rephrase my statement and say that using ATrpms has the "potential" to break your system. > now, can we get back to actually solving the problems? I would love to see ATrpms start playing nice with the official repositories. I think the first step would be to remove ALL packages that are already present in FC/FE. However, call me a cynic, I doubt this is going to happen. Axel, I'd love for you to prove me wrong on this point. From pertusus at free.fr Mon Oct 16 06:35:18 2006 From: pertusus at free.fr (Patrice Dumas) Date: Mon, 16 Oct 2006 08:35:18 +0200 Subject: Co-maintainers to assist upstreams with their packages in Extras In-Reply-To: References: <20061015084621.GC2323@free.fr> <20061015190030.GD8727@neu.nirvana> Message-ID: <20061016063518.GA2339@free.fr> On Sun, Oct 15, 2006 at 03:38:29PM -0500, Jason L Tibbitts III wrote: > >>>>> "AT" == Axel Thimm writes: > > And yet somehow we have Extras chugging along just fine with exactly > that rule, and the only thing to prevent such chaos is the various > agreements that maintainers make with each other. In any case there is one maintainer who has the final word, isn't it? I am referring to the primary maintainer as that person. He hasn't specific rights to enforce anything, since the cvs rights are the same for all, but everybody knows who he is and that he is the primary maintainer. It may happen that sometimes such a person don't exist, typically when a package has been unorphaned by a group of people and there isn't a clear primary maintainer, but it is an exception, and it cannot happen right after a submission (at which time the primary maintainer is the submitter, or the contributor listed in owner.list). -- Pat From chris.stone at gmail.com Mon Oct 16 06:51:23 2006 From: chris.stone at gmail.com (Christopher Stone) Date: Sun, 15 Oct 2006 23:51:23 -0700 Subject: Agressive FUD by Fedora contributor (was: [Bug 210775]) In-Reply-To: <1160954771.30731.14.camel@cutter> References: <200610151852.k9FIqxUN018347@bugzilla.redhat.com> <200610151759.k9FHxe5W016619@bugzilla.redhat.com> <20061015222455.GF8727@neu.nirvana> <1160954137.14932.37.camel@localhost.localdomain> <20061015231933.GC20785@devserv.devel.redhat.com> <1160954771.30731.14.camel@cutter> Message-ID: On 10/15/06, seth vidal wrote: > On Sun, 2006-10-15 at 19:19 -0400, Alan Cox wrote: > > On Sun, Oct 15, 2006 at 06:15:37PM -0500, Tom 'spot' Callaway wrote: > > > Well, forgive my ignorance here, but does ATrpms override any FC or FE > > > RPMs? If so, why? > > > > It strikes me that this is fixable in software whether intentional or not > > by teaching yum that repository 'x' must not contain packages that clash > > with repository 'y' and if they do to skip it for now with a warning. > > > > There's a plugin called 'protectbase' which does just that. I think that a repository that overrides base packages is far more damaging than any comments an individual can make on bugzilla or the mailing list. It is essentially forking Fedora and causes a lot of problems for the Fedora community. Such repositories are essentially creating their own distribution and should not be acceptable. It would be better for everyone, in my opinion, if these repositories created their own distribution instead. Therefore, I propose that the 'protectbase' plugin, be actually integrated into yum proper, and instead make a plugin which allows repositories to override core packages. That is, the default should be that no repository is allowed to override base packages unless you specifically install a plugin to allow them to do so. Comments? From sundaram at fedoraproject.org Mon Oct 16 07:01:38 2006 From: sundaram at fedoraproject.org (Rahul Sundaram) Date: Mon, 16 Oct 2006 12:31:38 +0530 Subject: Agressive FUD by Fedora contributor In-Reply-To: <20061015234051.GK8727@neu.nirvana> References: <200610151852.k9FIqxUN018347@bugzilla.redhat.com> <200610151759.k9FHxe5W016619@bugzilla.redhat.com> <20061015222455.GF8727@neu.nirvana> <1160954137.14932.37.camel@localhost.localdomain> <20061015234051.GK8727@neu.nirvana> Message-ID: <45332E52.5080102@fedoraproject.org> Axel Thimm wrote: > On Sun, Oct 15, 2006 at 06:15:37PM -0500, Tom 'spot' Callaway wrote: >> On Mon, 2006-10-16 at 00:24 +0200, Axel Thimm wrote: >> >>> Christopher Stone wrote: >>>> ATrpms is not compatible with Fedora (despite what they claim) and using this >>>> repo will only mess up your system. >>>> ATrpms overrides official Fedora RPMs and basically you end up destroying your >>>> system. >> Well, forgive my ignorance here, but does ATrpms override any FC or FE >> RPMs? If so, why? > > Apart from packages that existed at ATrpms to start with there are two > other cases: > > o Historically (e.g. RHL7.3 upwards) there were many bug fixes (like > the rpm rpms) required and crippled packages needed different build > options or more (non-existing) BRs to offer functionality needed by > other packages. > > o Packages required for non-Fedora distributions, e.g. RHEL4 and RHEL3. > > But modern Fedora has due to a faster pace in development and a richer > set of packages undone most of the issues, allowing ATrpms to reduce > the set of packages overlapping with Core. > > Still some attempts to cooperate in completely reducing them didn't > get the feedback they needed, e.g. last year on fedora-devel-list > > http://www.redhat.com/archives/rhl-devel-list/2005-December/msg01345.html > David Woodhouse for one, asked for specific examples in bugzilla. Thats pretty good feedback to get started with. Rahul From Axel.Thimm at ATrpms.net Mon Oct 16 08:07:42 2006 From: Axel.Thimm at ATrpms.net (Axel Thimm) Date: Mon, 16 Oct 2006 10:07:42 +0200 Subject: Agressive FUD by Fedora contributor In-Reply-To: <1160974736.30731.22.camel@cutter> References: <20061015222455.GF8727@neu.nirvana> <1160951328.30731.3.camel@cutter> <20061015223725.GG8727@neu.nirvana> <1160952184.30731.9.camel@cutter> <20061015230900.GI8727@neu.nirvana> <20061015235310.GL8727@neu.nirvana> <4533142F.7090607@math.unl.edu> <1160974736.30731.22.camel@cutter> Message-ID: <20061016080742.GM8727@neu.nirvana> On Mon, Oct 16, 2006 at 12:58:56AM -0400, seth vidal wrote: > On Mon, 2006-10-16 at 00:10 -0500, Rex Dieter wrote: > > Christopher Stone wrote: > > > But to make a long story short, > > > disabling ATrpms and using yum instead of apt-get solved their > > > problem. So I don't see how you can call this "FUD" when I *still* > > > have to deal with problems stemming from the ATrpms repo. > > > > IMO, If you have issues, take it up with Axel and/or an ATrpms mailing > > list, but such commentary has no place in any *fedora* bugzilla (nor on > > this mailing list). And please try to remember, we're trying to bring > > people together here, not divide them. > > Hold on. If someone has hosed up their system using ANY means why is not > appropriate to explain that in bugzilla? We go on screeds about nvidia > or ati drivers in bugzilla pretty commonly. How is what Christopher did > all that different? did you check the bug report? No system was broken and no bug was pointed out to. Christopher raged about ATrpms completely unmotivated. Or better said he raged after the submitter said he condsidered to submit this package to ATrpms. I could now pick a random bug report and start ranting about a random fedora contributior's packaging work, right? -- Axel.Thimm at ATrpms.net -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 189 bytes Desc: not available URL: From Axel.Thimm at ATrpms.net Mon Oct 16 08:10:36 2006 From: Axel.Thimm at ATrpms.net (Axel Thimm) Date: Mon, 16 Oct 2006 10:10:36 +0200 Subject: Agressive FUD by Fedora contributor In-Reply-To: <45332E52.5080102@fedoraproject.org> References: <200610151852.k9FIqxUN018347@bugzilla.redhat.com> <200610151759.k9FHxe5W016619@bugzilla.redhat.com> <20061015222455.GF8727@neu.nirvana> <1160954137.14932.37.camel@localhost.localdomain> <20061015234051.GK8727@neu.nirvana> <45332E52.5080102@fedoraproject.org> Message-ID: <20061016081036.GN8727@neu.nirvana> On Mon, Oct 16, 2006 at 12:31:38PM +0530, Rahul Sundaram wrote: > Axel Thimm wrote: > >On Sun, Oct 15, 2006 at 06:15:37PM -0500, Tom 'spot' Callaway wrote: > >>On Mon, 2006-10-16 at 00:24 +0200, Axel Thimm wrote: > >> > >>>Christopher Stone wrote: > >>>>ATrpms is not compatible with Fedora (despite what they claim) and > >>>>using this > >>>>repo will only mess up your system. > >>>>ATrpms overrides official Fedora RPMs and basically you end up > >>>>destroying your > >>>>system. > >>Well, forgive my ignorance here, but does ATrpms override any FC or FE > >>RPMs? If so, why? > > > >Apart from packages that existed at ATrpms to start with there are two > >other cases: > > > >o Historically (e.g. RHL7.3 upwards) there were many bug fixes (like > > the rpm rpms) required and crippled packages needed different build > > options or more (non-existing) BRs to offer functionality needed by > > other packages. > > > >o Packages required for non-Fedora distributions, e.g. RHEL4 and RHEL3. > > > >But modern Fedora has due to a faster pace in development and a richer > >set of packages undone most of the issues, allowing ATrpms to reduce > >the set of packages overlapping with Core. > > > >Still some attempts to cooperate in completely reducing them didn't > >get the feedback they needed, e.g. last year on fedora-devel-list > > > >http://www.redhat.com/archives/rhl-devel-list/2005-December/msg01345.html > > > > David Woodhouse for one, asked for specific examples in bugzilla. Thats > pretty good feedback to get started with. It was rather slated down by other (and louder) redhat.com email addresses. -- Axel.Thimm at ATrpms.net -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 189 bytes Desc: not available URL: From nicolas.mailhot at laposte.net Mon Oct 16 08:12:25 2006 From: nicolas.mailhot at laposte.net (Nicolas Mailhot) Date: Mon, 16 Oct 2006 10:12:25 +0200 (CEST) Subject: Agressive FUD by Fedora contributor In-Reply-To: <20061015235310.GL8727@neu.nirvana> References: <200610151852.k9FIqxUN018347@bugzilla.redhat.com> <200610151759.k9FHxe5W016619@bugzilla.redhat.com> <20061015222455.GF8727@neu.nirvana> <1160951328.30731.3.camel@cutter> <20061015223725.GG8727@neu.nirvana> <1160952184.30731.9.camel@cutter> <20061015230900.GI8727@neu.nirvana> <20061015235310.GL8727@neu.nirvana> Message-ID: <4212.192.54.193.51.1160986345.squirrel@rousalka.dyndns.org> Le Lun 16 octobre 2006 01:53, Axel Thimm a ?crit : > On Sun, Oct 15, 2006 at 04:14:46PM -0700, Christopher Stone wrote: >> You seem to be completely ignoring the **FACT** that Fedora users >> who use ATrpms end up with messed up systems in which they can no >> longer properly upgrade using yum. > > That is what I call FUD. I count a dozen thousand unique daily > visitors on ATrpms' master mirror and if one could get metrics from > the other mirrors there would be quite a huge number. So there are ~ > 15000 users with broken systems daily? Or are do they all belong to > the category "have been very lucky" as you write in bugzilla? Actually given the size of the Fedora community a dozen thousand is not much (especially when some high-profile apps such as mythtv are only available through atrpms). Though I'll concede it's way harder to find how many of the Fedora users not using atrpms do so because of a bad past experience, how many because of third-party advice, and how many just aren't aware of atrpms existence. Anyway let's forget the past and work on the future;) Since the conditions which caused atrpms to be created arguably no longer exist (Fedora not doing EE, slow bug fixing within FC, Axel not being part of Fedora instances...) how about aiming for atrpms resorption by FC7 time ? (with atrpms only providing rebuilds for releases/packages Fedora does not care about). For example: 1. create an atrpms tracker bug in FE and L repo 2. for every package in atrpms create an issue in those bugzilla, blocking this tracker (issue being: review request for new package, FC/FE bug for duplicate packages if the duplication has a technical reason) Surely if as some claimed atrpm is causing a high number of problem for users there should be no dearth of people working on those issues. This way next time someone complains about atrpms, Axel can just point him to the tracker:) Regards, -- Nicolas Mailhot From sundaram at fedoraproject.org Mon Oct 16 08:16:13 2006 From: sundaram at fedoraproject.org (Rahul Sundaram) Date: Mon, 16 Oct 2006 13:46:13 +0530 Subject: Agressive FUD by Fedora contributor In-Reply-To: <20061016081036.GN8727@neu.nirvana> References: <200610151852.k9FIqxUN018347@bugzilla.redhat.com> <200610151759.k9FHxe5W016619@bugzilla.redhat.com> <20061015222455.GF8727@neu.nirvana> <1160954137.14932.37.camel@localhost.localdomain> <20061015234051.GK8727@neu.nirvana> <45332E52.5080102@fedoraproject.org> <20061016081036.GN8727@neu.nirvana> Message-ID: <45333FCD.60909@fedoraproject.org> Axel Thimm wrote: >>> >>> http://www.redhat.com/archives/rhl-devel-list/2005-December/msg01345.html >>> >> David Woodhouse for one, asked for specific examples in bugzilla. Thats >> pretty good feedback to get started with. > > It was rather slated down by other (and louder) redhat.com email addresses. Did you file any bug reports? If you selectively listen to some people and give up on efforts, we wouldnt see progress on anything. Rahul From chris.stone at gmail.com Mon Oct 16 08:28:09 2006 From: chris.stone at gmail.com (Christopher Stone) Date: Mon, 16 Oct 2006 01:28:09 -0700 Subject: Agressive FUD by Fedora contributor In-Reply-To: <20061016080742.GM8727@neu.nirvana> References: <20061015222455.GF8727@neu.nirvana> <20061015223725.GG8727@neu.nirvana> <1160952184.30731.9.camel@cutter> <20061015230900.GI8727@neu.nirvana> <20061015235310.GL8727@neu.nirvana> <4533142F.7090607@math.unl.edu> <1160974736.30731.22.camel@cutter> <20061016080742.GM8727@neu.nirvana> Message-ID: On 10/16/06, Axel Thimm wrote: > On Mon, Oct 16, 2006 at 12:58:56AM -0400, seth vidal wrote: > > On Mon, 2006-10-16 at 00:10 -0500, Rex Dieter wrote: > > > Christopher Stone wrote: > > > > But to make a long story short, > > > > disabling ATrpms and using yum instead of apt-get solved their > > > > problem. So I don't see how you can call this "FUD" when I *still* > > > > have to deal with problems stemming from the ATrpms repo. > > > > > > IMO, If you have issues, take it up with Axel and/or an ATrpms mailing > > > list, but such commentary has no place in any *fedora* bugzilla (nor on > > > this mailing list). And please try to remember, we're trying to bring > > > people together here, not divide them. > > > > Hold on. If someone has hosed up their system using ANY means why is not > > appropriate to explain that in bugzilla? We go on screeds about nvidia > > or ati drivers in bugzilla pretty commonly. How is what Christopher did > > all that different? > > did you check the bug report? No system was broken and no bug was > pointed out to. Christopher raged about ATrpms completely > unmotivated. Or better said he raged after the submitter said he > condsidered to submit this package to ATrpms. > > I could now pick a random bug report and start ranting about a random > fedora contributior's packaging work, right? I will officially apologize to you in front of the entire community and endorse the use of ATrpms if you promise to remove all packages that conflict with FC/FE. I feel that you are putting too much effort into condoning what I said, and not enough effort in making your repository work well with others. As I stated in the other thread, a repository that overrides base packages essentially forks Fedora and creates a new distribution, and this is far more damaging to the community than any comments made by a single individual. So once again, I will take back and apologize for everything I have said if you will promise to try and work more closely with the community and no longer override base packages found in FC/FE. From dwmw2 at infradead.org Mon Oct 16 08:35:03 2006 From: dwmw2 at infradead.org (David Woodhouse) Date: Mon, 16 Oct 2006 09:35:03 +0100 Subject: Agressive FUD by Fedora contributor In-Reply-To: <20061015223725.GG8727@neu.nirvana> References: <200610151852.k9FIqxUN018347@bugzilla.redhat.com> <200610151759.k9FHxe5W016619@bugzilla.redhat.com> <20061015222455.GF8727@neu.nirvana> <1160951328.30731.3.camel@cutter> <20061015223725.GG8727@neu.nirvana> Message-ID: <1160987703.3376.106.camel@pmac.infradead.org> On Mon, 2006-10-16 at 00:37 +0200, Axel Thimm wrote: > > but there's no 'censure' process if that's what you're gunning for. > > No, censoring is always bad, that doesn't mean that such behaviour > shouldn't be counteracted. Censor != Censure. I think that censure probably was what you had in mind. -- dwmw2 From Axel.Thimm at ATrpms.net Mon Oct 16 08:36:49 2006 From: Axel.Thimm at ATrpms.net (Axel Thimm) Date: Mon, 16 Oct 2006 10:36:49 +0200 Subject: Agressive FUD by Fedora contributor In-Reply-To: References: <20061015223725.GG8727@neu.nirvana> <1160952184.30731.9.camel@cutter> <20061015230900.GI8727@neu.nirvana> <20061015235310.GL8727@neu.nirvana> <4533142F.7090607@math.unl.edu> <1160975411.30731.29.camel@cutter> Message-ID: <20061016083649.GR8727@neu.nirvana> On Sun, Oct 15, 2006 at 10:20:11PM -0700, Christopher Stone wrote: > On 10/15/06, seth vidal wrote: > >On Sun, 2006-10-15 at 22:00 -0700, Christopher Stone wrote: > >Axel is not trying to break people's systems and there was too much > >invective in your post. > > I did not mean to imply he is *trying* to break people's systems. I > am only stating what I know through experience, and this is that > people who have used ATrpms (including myself) have had problems with > yum. It is pretty much the standard answer in #fedora to tell someone > to remove ATrpms when diagnosing a problem, and it is a shame that > this is the case. Yes, it's a shame, so why are you doing it? If there were issues try to nail them down and report them instead of continuously fudding people. > So let me rephrase my statement and say that using ATrpms has the > "potential" to break your system. A sudden change of facts. ... > However, call me a cynic, I doubt this is going to happen. Axel, I'd > love for you to prove me wrong on this point. I've proven you wrong in quite a few points already I guess. -- Axel.Thimm at ATrpms.net -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 189 bytes Desc: not available URL: From Axel.Thimm at ATrpms.net Mon Oct 16 08:28:00 2006 From: Axel.Thimm at ATrpms.net (Axel Thimm) Date: Mon, 16 Oct 2006 10:28:00 +0200 Subject: Agressive FUD by Fedora contributor In-Reply-To: References: <200610151759.k9FHxe5W016619@bugzilla.redhat.com> <20061015222455.GF8727@neu.nirvana> <1160951328.30731.3.camel@cutter> <20061015223725.GG8727@neu.nirvana> <1160952184.30731.9.camel@cutter> <20061015230900.GI8727@neu.nirvana> <20061015235310.GL8727@neu.nirvana> Message-ID: <20061016082800.GP8727@neu.nirvana> On Sun, Oct 15, 2006 at 06:15:56PM -0700, Christopher Stone wrote: > As an experiment, I added the ATrpms repository to my > /etc/yum.repos.d/ directory and ran yum check-update. In theory, > adding a new repository and running check-update should not list ANY > packages, however this is what check-update listed as needing > updating: So? ATrpms has some needs to replace some core packages. Does this break your system? No, it does not. > I'm not sure how many of these packages are actually FC/FE packages, Any package with a multimedia stamp on it is known not to be part of FC. Don't add overlaps between ATrpms and other non-FC repos to magnify your argument. -- Axel.Thimm at ATrpms.net -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 189 bytes Desc: not available URL: From Axel.Thimm at ATrpms.net Mon Oct 16 08:57:00 2006 From: Axel.Thimm at ATrpms.net (Axel Thimm) Date: Mon, 16 Oct 2006 10:57:00 +0200 Subject: Agressive FUD by Fedora contributor In-Reply-To: References: <20061015223725.GG8727@neu.nirvana> <1160952184.30731.9.camel@cutter> <20061015230900.GI8727@neu.nirvana> <20061015235310.GL8727@neu.nirvana> <4533142F.7090607@math.unl.edu> <1160974736.30731.22.camel@cutter> <20061016080742.GM8727@neu.nirvana> Message-ID: <20061016085700.GS8727@neu.nirvana> On Mon, Oct 16, 2006 at 01:28:09AM -0700, Christopher Stone wrote: > I feel that you are putting too much effort into condoning what I > said, and not enough effort in making your repository work well with > others. Your feeling is way off. -- Axel.Thimm at ATrpms.net -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 189 bytes Desc: not available URL: From Axel.Thimm at ATrpms.net Mon Oct 16 08:34:14 2006 From: Axel.Thimm at ATrpms.net (Axel Thimm) Date: Mon, 16 Oct 2006 10:34:14 +0200 Subject: Agressive FUD by Fedora contributor In-Reply-To: References: <20061015222455.GF8727@neu.nirvana> <1160951328.30731.3.camel@cutter> <20061015223725.GG8727@neu.nirvana> <1160952184.30731.9.camel@cutter> <20061015230900.GI8727@neu.nirvana> <20061015235310.GL8727@neu.nirvana> <4533142F.7090607@math.unl.edu> Message-ID: <20061016083414.GQ8727@neu.nirvana> On Sun, Oct 15, 2006 at 10:00:06PM -0700, Christopher Stone wrote: > As you can clearly see from this thread Axel is completely ignoring > the fact this his packages break Fedora user's systems [...] The > simple fact of the matter is that ATrpms breaks your system and Axel > refuses to acknowledge the fact, [...] I'm sorry if this makes you > upset, but it happens to be the truth. And it only takes a mail from Seth to make you change that *fact* of ATrpms packages breaking your system to a *potential* breakage. Indeed any package at ATrpms has potential breakage. But this is true for any piece of software and package out there. Or did you invent the bug-free software? Does it make sense to ask you on specific examples on how ATrpms break your system as a fact? A non-invented one, you do have "countless" of people running to you with their problems daily, so you do have tons of examples, right? No, don't bother, I don't want to have to technically argue on the next invented issue you throw at me. Your reply above shows that you're on FUD-mode still. And that's what this is about, you dividing the community and mobbing other fedora contributors. -- Axel.Thimm at ATrpms.net -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 189 bytes Desc: not available URL: From Axel.Thimm at ATrpms.net Mon Oct 16 08:22:58 2006 From: Axel.Thimm at ATrpms.net (Axel Thimm) Date: Mon, 16 Oct 2006 10:22:58 +0200 Subject: Agressive FUD by Fedora contributor In-Reply-To: References: <200610151759.k9FHxe5W016619@bugzilla.redhat.com> <20061015222455.GF8727@neu.nirvana> <1160951328.30731.3.camel@cutter> <20061015223725.GG8727@neu.nirvana> <1160952184.30731.9.camel@cutter> <20061015230900.GI8727@neu.nirvana> <20061015235310.GL8727@neu.nirvana> Message-ID: <20061016082258.GO8727@neu.nirvana> On Sun, Oct 15, 2006 at 05:13:14PM -0700, Christopher Stone wrote: > Do you think I am spreading lies here? Let me just collate some quotes of you in the last 24h: Your buzilla comment: a) I do not use ATrpms so I have never had any problems myself. A comment in a previous mail b) Actually, I did once use ATrpms a long time ago, A comment in this mail c) Let me describe my latest issue with ATrpms which I had to deal with not more than a few weeks ago A couple more replies and you will be admitting to be a regular ATrpms user? :) Anyway since you bring it up, yes, I thing some of these sentences contradict, so not all of them can be true, right? Now on to the next piece of FUD. I think you're now despeately trying to invent issues. You mention nx. nx entered ATrpms when extras was rejecting it. It was carefully packaged *in cooperation* with the person that did the fedoranews article and later managed to get it into extras. At all times compatibility and upgradablity were ensured, and any improvement made on ATrpms' side were communicated back to the current package maintainer in extras. I think you really picked a bad example, invent something else. > I work closely with an upstream developer on several of the packages I > maintain for Fedora. Upstream made a build farm for their packages > which recently was breaking with Fedora. They asked me to fix the > problem and it was due to the fact that they were using apt-get and > ATrpms. > > IIRC, I believe it was the "nx" package that was causing problems for > them, I'm not sure how nx was getting installed, perhaps as some > dependency for another package. But to make a long story short, > disabling ATrpms and using yum instead of apt-get solved their > problem. So I don't see how you can call this "FUD" when I *still* > have to deal with problems stemming from the ATrpms repo. > -- Axel.Thimm at ATrpms.net -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 189 bytes Desc: not available URL: From Axel.Thimm at ATrpms.net Mon Oct 16 09:01:42 2006 From: Axel.Thimm at ATrpms.net (Axel Thimm) Date: Mon, 16 Oct 2006 11:01:42 +0200 Subject: Agressive FUD by Fedora contributor In-Reply-To: <45333FCD.60909@fedoraproject.org> References: <200610151852.k9FIqxUN018347@bugzilla.redhat.com> <200610151759.k9FHxe5W016619@bugzilla.redhat.com> <20061015222455.GF8727@neu.nirvana> <1160954137.14932.37.camel@localhost.localdomain> <20061015234051.GK8727@neu.nirvana> <45332E52.5080102@fedoraproject.org> <20061016081036.GN8727@neu.nirvana> <45333FCD.60909@fedoraproject.org> Message-ID: <20061016090142.GT8727@neu.nirvana> On Mon, Oct 16, 2006 at 01:46:13PM +0530, Rahul Sundaram wrote: > Axel Thimm wrote: > > >>> > >>>http://www.redhat.com/archives/rhl-devel-list/2005-December/msg01345.html > >>> > >>David Woodhouse for one, asked for specific examples in bugzilla. Thats > >>pretty good feedback to get started with. > > > >It was rather slated down by other (and louder) redhat.com email addresses. > > Did you file any bug reports? If you selectively listen to some people > and give up on efforts, we wouldnt see progress on anything. No, I didn't. If you check the mentioned thread it was about whether that makes sense at all. There was a very prominent objection on this where it was clearly stated that no packages will get altered, so why bother creating bugzilla tickets that would be closed as WONTFIX? That would only create unnecessary conflict situations. If this has changed by now it would be nice, of course. But in that case let's open up another thread, this one here is about fudding and will not lead to anything constructive. -- Axel.Thimm at ATrpms.net -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 189 bytes Desc: not available URL: From Axel.Thimm at ATrpms.net Mon Oct 16 09:10:47 2006 From: Axel.Thimm at ATrpms.net (Axel Thimm) Date: Mon, 16 Oct 2006 11:10:47 +0200 Subject: Agressive FUD by Fedora contributor In-Reply-To: <1160987703.3376.106.camel@pmac.infradead.org> References: <200610151852.k9FIqxUN018347@bugzilla.redhat.com> <200610151759.k9FHxe5W016619@bugzilla.redhat.com> <20061015222455.GF8727@neu.nirvana> <1160951328.30731.3.camel@cutter> <20061015223725.GG8727@neu.nirvana> <1160987703.3376.106.camel@pmac.infradead.org> Message-ID: <20061016091047.GU8727@neu.nirvana> On Mon, Oct 16, 2006 at 09:35:03AM +0100, David Woodhouse wrote: > On Mon, 2006-10-16 at 00:37 +0200, Axel Thimm wrote: > > > but there's no 'censure' process if that's what you're gunning for. > > > > No, censoring is always bad, that doesn't mean that such behaviour > > shouldn't be counteracted. > > Censor != Censure. > > I think that censure probably was what you had in mind. There was a misunderstanding, it never occured to me (and obviously other according to the replies) that there are two expressions sounding so much alike. If I understand correctly there is: censuring: To criticize severely censoring: To examine and expurgate (most probably they sound identical) In light of that, I'll refine my sentence: "Yes, someone misbehaving to some extent needs to be censured, e.g. criticized like in this thread, no, censoring is always bad, e.g. no removal of bugzilla comments". -- Axel.Thimm at ATrpms.net -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 189 bytes Desc: not available URL: From chris.stone at gmail.com Mon Oct 16 09:15:06 2006 From: chris.stone at gmail.com (Christopher Stone) Date: Mon, 16 Oct 2006 02:15:06 -0700 Subject: Agressive FUD by Fedora contributor In-Reply-To: <20061016083649.GR8727@neu.nirvana> References: <20061015223725.GG8727@neu.nirvana> <20061015230900.GI8727@neu.nirvana> <20061015235310.GL8727@neu.nirvana> <4533142F.7090607@math.unl.edu> <1160975411.30731.29.camel@cutter> <20061016083649.GR8727@neu.nirvana> Message-ID: On 10/16/06, Axel Thimm wrote: > On Sun, Oct 15, 2006 at 10:20:11PM -0700, Christopher Stone wrote: > > On 10/15/06, seth vidal wrote: > > >On Sun, 2006-10-15 at 22:00 -0700, Christopher Stone wrote: > > >Axel is not trying to break people's systems and there was too much > > >invective in your post. > > > > I did not mean to imply he is *trying* to break people's systems. I > > am only stating what I know through experience, and this is that > > people who have used ATrpms (including myself) have had problems with > > yum. It is pretty much the standard answer in #fedora to tell someone > > to remove ATrpms when diagnosing a problem, and it is a shame that > > this is the case. > > Yes, it's a shame, so why are you doing it? If there were issues try > to nail them down and report them instead of continuously fudding > people. First, it is not *just* me. It is basically everybody in the channel that tries to help other people. There is only one issue, and that is ATrpms overrides core packages. I am reporting this to you NOW. What are you going to do to fix this? Do you really expect the Fedora community to support both the Fedora distribution as well as the ATrpms distribution? > > > So let me rephrase my statement and say that using ATrpms has the > > "potential" to break your system. > > A sudden change of facts. ... Hey, I am just trying to be more tactful. You are reacting so negatively to everything I say that I am retracting some of the things I said previously and trying to state them in a more tactful way. From chris.stone at gmail.com Mon Oct 16 09:19:46 2006 From: chris.stone at gmail.com (Christopher Stone) Date: Mon, 16 Oct 2006 02:19:46 -0700 Subject: Agressive FUD by Fedora contributor In-Reply-To: <20061016082800.GP8727@neu.nirvana> References: <200610151759.k9FHxe5W016619@bugzilla.redhat.com> <1160951328.30731.3.camel@cutter> <20061015223725.GG8727@neu.nirvana> <1160952184.30731.9.camel@cutter> <20061015230900.GI8727@neu.nirvana> <20061015235310.GL8727@neu.nirvana> <20061016082800.GP8727@neu.nirvana> Message-ID: On 10/16/06, Axel Thimm wrote: > On Sun, Oct 15, 2006 at 06:15:56PM -0700, Christopher Stone wrote: > > As an experiment, I added the ATrpms repository to my > > /etc/yum.repos.d/ directory and ran yum check-update. In theory, > > adding a new repository and running check-update should not list ANY > > packages, however this is what check-update listed as needing > > updating: > > So? ATrpms has some needs to replace some core packages. Does this > break your system? No, it does not. ATrpms replaces many packages which it does not need to replace (I'm almost certain of this considering how many packages it replaces). You should not replace core packages in your repository. Instead you should file bug reports against the packages in FC/FE which you need to replace in order to fix them so they don't need to be replaced. If there is *anybody* on this mailing list that disagrees with this statement, please speak up. I doubt anyone will. > > I'm not sure how many of these packages are actually FC/FE packages, > > Any package with a multimedia stamp on it is known not to be part of > FC. Don't add overlaps between ATrpms and other non-FC repos to > magnify your argument. If I wanted to magnify my argument I would have listed the 20-30 additional packages that show up when I do a "yum update" and it brings in all the dependencies as well. There are so many packages you override that attempting to magnify it would be a waste of my time. From chris.stone at gmail.com Mon Oct 16 09:21:21 2006 From: chris.stone at gmail.com (Christopher Stone) Date: Mon, 16 Oct 2006 02:21:21 -0700 Subject: Agressive FUD by Fedora contributor In-Reply-To: <20061016085700.GS8727@neu.nirvana> References: <20061015223725.GG8727@neu.nirvana> <20061015230900.GI8727@neu.nirvana> <20061015235310.GL8727@neu.nirvana> <4533142F.7090607@math.unl.edu> <1160974736.30731.22.camel@cutter> <20061016080742.GM8727@neu.nirvana> <20061016085700.GS8727@neu.nirvana> Message-ID: On 10/16/06, Axel Thimm wrote: > On Mon, Oct 16, 2006 at 01:28:09AM -0700, Christopher Stone wrote: > > I feel that you are putting too much effort into condoning what I > > said, and not enough effort in making your repository work well with > > others. > > Your feeling is way off. I am very happy to hear this! I look forward to the removal of all the FC and FE packages you override at ATrpms! Thank you so much for your cooperation! The entire community will benefit once ATrpms no longer forks Fedora and creates its own distribution! Thank you very much! From chris.stone at gmail.com Mon Oct 16 09:23:58 2006 From: chris.stone at gmail.com (Christopher Stone) Date: Mon, 16 Oct 2006 02:23:58 -0700 Subject: Agressive FUD by Fedora contributor In-Reply-To: <20061016083414.GQ8727@neu.nirvana> References: <20061015222455.GF8727@neu.nirvana> <20061015223725.GG8727@neu.nirvana> <1160952184.30731.9.camel@cutter> <20061015230900.GI8727@neu.nirvana> <20061015235310.GL8727@neu.nirvana> <4533142F.7090607@math.unl.edu> <20061016083414.GQ8727@neu.nirvana> Message-ID: On 10/16/06, Axel Thimm wrote: > On Sun, Oct 15, 2006 at 10:00:06PM -0700, Christopher Stone wrote: > > As you can clearly see from this thread Axel is completely ignoring > > the fact this his packages break Fedora user's systems [...] The > > simple fact of the matter is that ATrpms breaks your system and Axel > > refuses to acknowledge the fact, [...] I'm sorry if this makes you > > upset, but it happens to be the truth. > > And it only takes a mail from Seth to make you change that *fact* of > ATrpms packages breaking your system to a *potential* breakage. > > Indeed any package at ATrpms has potential breakage. But this is true > for any piece of software and package out there. Or did you invent the > bug-free software? > > Does it make sense to ask you on specific examples on how ATrpms break > your system as a fact? A non-invented one, you do have "countless" of > people running to you with their problems daily, so you do have tons > of examples, right? > > No, don't bother, I don't want to have to technically argue on the > next invented issue you throw at me. Your reply above shows that > you're on FUD-mode still. And that's what this is about, you dividing > the community and mobbing other fedora contributors. It is sad to see that you refuse to believe there is any problem here. I will contact the upstream developer and ask him to remind me of the exact issue that was causing the problems if he remembers. Im pretty sure it was something to do with nx, but I could be mistaken. I will get back to you once I know more. I am very dissappointed that you think I am inventing problems. Is it really that hard for you to accept the possibility that there may exist a problem with an ATrpms package? From Axel.Thimm at ATrpms.net Mon Oct 16 09:24:03 2006 From: Axel.Thimm at ATrpms.net (Axel Thimm) Date: Mon, 16 Oct 2006 11:24:03 +0200 Subject: Agressive FUD by Fedora contributor In-Reply-To: References: <1160951328.30731.3.camel@cutter> <20061015223725.GG8727@neu.nirvana> <1160952184.30731.9.camel@cutter> <20061015230900.GI8727@neu.nirvana> <20061015235310.GL8727@neu.nirvana> <20061016082800.GP8727@neu.nirvana> Message-ID: <20061016092403.GV8727@neu.nirvana> On Mon, Oct 16, 2006 at 02:19:46AM -0700, Christopher Stone wrote: > >Any package with a multimedia stamp on it is known not to be part of > >FC. Don't add overlaps between ATrpms and other non-FC repos to > >magnify your argument. > > If I wanted to magnify my argument I would have listed the 20-30 > additional packages that show up when I do a "yum update" and it > brings in all the dependencies as well. There are so many packages > you override that attempting to magnify it would be a waste of my > time. Ahem, you know how yum works, right? If a package is pulled in by yum update by a dependency only, it is hardly existing on your system ... -- Axel.Thimm at ATrpms.net -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 189 bytes Desc: not available URL: From sundaram at fedoraproject.org Mon Oct 16 09:25:04 2006 From: sundaram at fedoraproject.org (Rahul Sundaram) Date: Mon, 16 Oct 2006 14:55:04 +0530 Subject: Agressive FUD by Fedora contributor In-Reply-To: <20061016090142.GT8727@neu.nirvana> References: <200610151852.k9FIqxUN018347@bugzilla.redhat.com> <200610151759.k9FHxe5W016619@bugzilla.redhat.com> <20061015222455.GF8727@neu.nirvana> <1160954137.14932.37.camel@localhost.localdomain> <20061015234051.GK8727@neu.nirvana> <45332E52.5080102@fedoraproject.org> <20061016081036.GN8727@neu.nirvana> <45333FCD.60909@fedoraproject.org> <20061016090142.GT8727@neu.nirvana> Message-ID: <45334FF0.9030802@fedoraproject.org> Axel Thimm wrote: > No, I didn't. If you check the mentioned thread it was about whether > that makes sense at all. There was a very prominent objection on this > where it was clearly stated that no packages will get altered, so why > bother creating bugzilla tickets that would be closed as WONTFIX? That > would only create unnecessary conflict situations. I did check the thread and found about five mails there and none of them seemed to oppose the idea. I have lost the local copies of fedora lists recently so if you can point me more specifically to the opposition, that would be helpful. > If this has changed by now it would be nice, of course. But in that > case let's open up another thread, this one here is about fudding and > will not lead to anything constructive. Eliminating root causes can give people less chance to harp on it. Rahul From j.w.r.degoede at hhs.nl Mon Oct 16 09:34:52 2006 From: j.w.r.degoede at hhs.nl (Hans de Goede) Date: Mon, 16 Oct 2006 11:34:52 +0200 Subject: Agressive FUD by Fedora contributor In-Reply-To: References: <20061015223725.GG8727@neu.nirvana> <20061015230900.GI8727@neu.nirvana> <20061015235310.GL8727@neu.nirvana> <4533142F.7090607@math.unl.edu> <1160974736.30731.22.camel@cutter> <20061016080742.GM8727@neu.nirvana> <20061016085700.GS8727@neu.nirvana> Message-ID: <4533523C.3060903@hhs.nl> Chris, Axel, Can we please either have a constructive discussion or may I request that you fight this out by private mail instead? Time to end this flamefest. Thanks & Regards, Hans From Axel.Thimm at ATrpms.net Mon Oct 16 09:27:13 2006 From: Axel.Thimm at ATrpms.net (Axel Thimm) Date: Mon, 16 Oct 2006 11:27:13 +0200 Subject: Agressive FUD by Fedora contributor In-Reply-To: <45334FF0.9030802@fedoraproject.org> References: <200610151759.k9FHxe5W016619@bugzilla.redhat.com> <20061015222455.GF8727@neu.nirvana> <1160954137.14932.37.camel@localhost.localdomain> <20061015234051.GK8727@neu.nirvana> <45332E52.5080102@fedoraproject.org> <20061016081036.GN8727@neu.nirvana> <45333FCD.60909@fedoraproject.org> <20061016090142.GT8727@neu.nirvana> <45334FF0.9030802@fedoraproject.org> Message-ID: <20061016092713.GW8727@neu.nirvana> On Mon, Oct 16, 2006 at 02:55:04PM +0530, Rahul Sundaram wrote: > Axel Thimm wrote: > > >No, I didn't. If you check the mentioned thread it was about whether > >that makes sense at all. There was a very prominent objection on this > >where it was clearly stated that no packages will get altered, so why > >bother creating bugzilla tickets that would be closed as WONTFIX? That > >would only create unnecessary conflict situations. > > I did check the thread and found about five mails there and none of them > seemed to oppose the idea. I have lost the local copies of fedora lists > recently so if you can point me more specifically to the opposition, > that would be helpful. OK, I'll do so in PM, and you will understand why. -- Axel.Thimm at ATrpms.net -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 189 bytes Desc: not available URL: From chris.stone at gmail.com Mon Oct 16 09:28:03 2006 From: chris.stone at gmail.com (Christopher Stone) Date: Mon, 16 Oct 2006 02:28:03 -0700 Subject: Agressive FUD by Fedora contributor In-Reply-To: <20061016082258.GO8727@neu.nirvana> References: <20061015222455.GF8727@neu.nirvana> <1160951328.30731.3.camel@cutter> <20061015223725.GG8727@neu.nirvana> <1160952184.30731.9.camel@cutter> <20061015230900.GI8727@neu.nirvana> <20061015235310.GL8727@neu.nirvana> <20061016082258.GO8727@neu.nirvana> Message-ID: On 10/16/06, Axel Thimm wrote: > On Sun, Oct 15, 2006 at 05:13:14PM -0700, Christopher Stone wrote: > > Do you think I am spreading lies here? > > Let me just collate some quotes of you in the last 24h: > > Your buzilla comment: > a) I do not use ATrpms so I have never had any problems myself. > > A comment in a previous mail > b) Actually, I did once use ATrpms a long time ago, > > A comment in this mail > c) Let me describe my latest issue with ATrpms which I had to deal > with not more than a few weeks ago > > A couple more replies and you will be admitting to be a regular ATrpms > user? :) Here are the facts which will hopefully clear this up for you. 1) I *did* infact use ATrpms a long time ago (probably around FC1 timeframe but I can't say exactly when). 2) The comment in the bug report should have said "I dont CURRENTLY use ATrpms so therefore I dont CURRENTLY have any problems" 3) The issue I dealt with a few weeks ago was with UPSTREAM using ATrpms, not me. 4) as stated above, I will contact upstream and see if they can remember more precisely what the issue was with the nx package. I will let you know once I find out more. From dwmw2 at infradead.org Mon Oct 16 09:30:12 2006 From: dwmw2 at infradead.org (David Woodhouse) Date: Mon, 16 Oct 2006 10:30:12 +0100 Subject: Agressive FUD by Fedora contributor In-Reply-To: <20061016090142.GT8727@neu.nirvana> References: <200610151852.k9FIqxUN018347@bugzilla.redhat.com> <200610151759.k9FHxe5W016619@bugzilla.redhat.com> <20061015222455.GF8727@neu.nirvana> <1160954137.14932.37.camel@localhost.localdomain> <20061015234051.GK8727@neu.nirvana> <45332E52.5080102@fedoraproject.org> <20061016081036.GN8727@neu.nirvana> <45333FCD.60909@fedoraproject.org> <20061016090142.GT8727@neu.nirvana> Message-ID: <1160991012.3376.131.camel@pmac.infradead.org> On Mon, 2006-10-16 at 11:01 +0200, Axel Thimm wrote: > No, I didn't. If you check the mentioned thread it was about whether > that makes sense at all. There was a very prominent objection on this > where it was clearly stated that no packages will get altered, so why > bother creating bugzilla tickets that would be closed as WONTFIX? That > would only create unnecessary conflict situations. I've just looked at the archives and I don't see a clear statement that no packages will be altered. Even if I did see one (and admittedly I didn't look at _every_ mail in the January archive) I wouldn't have believed it. There is nobody who could say with a thing with authority, since individual package maintainers will generally make up their own minds. Warren's response was as follows: "Core and Extras are under no obligation to change anything to cater to any 3rd party, although the individual package maintainers have the option of doing so if it is reasonable. Regular changes in Core and Extras are possible if they are general bug fixes." (http://www.redhat.com/archives/rhl-devel-list/2006-January/msg00019.html) Please, file bugs against specific packages if there are ways that they could be improved, with a coherent explanation. I have to admit that I'm not entirely sure precisely what these 'versioned Obsoletes' are intended to fix, or how. -- dwmw2 From denis at poolshark.org Mon Oct 16 09:29:12 2006 From: denis at poolshark.org (Denis Leroy) Date: Mon, 16 Oct 2006 11:29:12 +0200 Subject: Agressive FUD by Fedora contributor In-Reply-To: <4533523C.3060903@hhs.nl> References: <20061015223725.GG8727@neu.nirvana> <20061015230900.GI8727@neu.nirvana> <20061015235310.GL8727@neu.nirvana> <4533142F.7090607@math.unl.edu> <1160974736.30731.22.camel@cutter> <20061016080742.GM8727@neu.nirvana> <20061016085700.GS8727@neu.nirvana> <4533523C.3060903@hhs.nl> Message-ID: <453350E8.7040300@poolshark.org> Hans de Goede wrote: > Chris, Axel, > > Can we please either have a constructive discussion or may I request > that you fight this out by private mail instead? > > Time to end this flamefest. > > Thanks & Regards, > > Hans +1. This discussion is pointless. From dwmw2 at infradead.org Mon Oct 16 09:31:30 2006 From: dwmw2 at infradead.org (David Woodhouse) Date: Mon, 16 Oct 2006 10:31:30 +0100 Subject: Agressive FUD by Fedora contributor In-Reply-To: <45334FF0.9030802@fedoraproject.org> References: <200610151852.k9FIqxUN018347@bugzilla.redhat.com> <200610151759.k9FHxe5W016619@bugzilla.redhat.com> <20061015222455.GF8727@neu.nirvana> <1160954137.14932.37.camel@localhost.localdomain> <20061015234051.GK8727@neu.nirvana> <45332E52.5080102@fedoraproject.org> <20061016081036.GN8727@neu.nirvana> <45333FCD.60909@fedoraproject.org> <20061016090142.GT8727@neu.nirvana> <45334FF0.9030802@fedoraproject.org> Message-ID: <1160991090.3376.134.camel@pmac.infradead.org> On Mon, 2006-10-16 at 14:55 +0530, Rahul Sundaram wrote: > > I did check the thread and found about five mails there and none of them > seemed to oppose the idea. I have lost the local copies of fedora lists > recently so if you can point me more specifically to the opposition, > that would be helpful. The thread started on the last day of the month and continues in the next month's archives. -- dwmw2 From pix at crazyfrogs.org Mon Oct 16 09:33:28 2006 From: pix at crazyfrogs.org (Pix) Date: Mon, 16 Oct 2006 11:33:28 +0200 Subject: Agressive FUD by Fedora contributor In-Reply-To: <453350E8.7040300@poolshark.org> References: <20061015223725.GG8727@neu.nirvana> <20061015230900.GI8727@neu.nirvana> <20061015235310.GL8727@neu.nirvana> <4533142F.7090607@math.unl.edu> <1160974736.30731.22.camel@cutter> <20061016080742.GM8727@neu.nirvana> <20061016085700.GS8727@neu.nirvana> <4533523C.3060903@hhs.nl> <453350E8.7040300@poolshark.org> Message-ID: <1160991208.15734.2.camel@ruatha> Yeah, 2 hours and still no godwin :( Le lundi 16 octobre 2006 ? 11:29 +0200, Denis Leroy a ?crit : > Hans de Goede wrote: > > Chris, Axel, > > > > Can we please either have a constructive discussion or may I request > > that you fight this out by private mail instead? > > > > Time to end this flamefest. > > > > Thanks & Regards, > > > > Hans > > +1. This discussion is pointless. > > -- > Fedora-maintainers mailing list > Fedora-maintainers at redhat.com > https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-maintainers -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From chris.stone at gmail.com Mon Oct 16 09:37:04 2006 From: chris.stone at gmail.com (Christopher Stone) Date: Mon, 16 Oct 2006 02:37:04 -0700 Subject: Agressive FUD by Fedora contributor In-Reply-To: <4533523C.3060903@hhs.nl> References: <20061015223725.GG8727@neu.nirvana> <20061015235310.GL8727@neu.nirvana> <4533142F.7090607@math.unl.edu> <1160974736.30731.22.camel@cutter> <20061016080742.GM8727@neu.nirvana> <20061016085700.GS8727@neu.nirvana> <4533523C.3060903@hhs.nl> Message-ID: On 10/16/06, Hans de Goede wrote: > Chris, Axel, > > Can we please either have a constructive discussion or may I request > that you fight this out by private mail instead? > > Time to end this flamefest. I am trying my best to be constructive here Hans. I very much want to end the flamebait parts of this thread, but it takes two to make that happen. I sincerly hope we can concentrate on the real issues. But what I consider a real issue seems to be different than what Axel considers to be a real issue. For clarity, I think the real issue is ATrpms forking Fedora by overriding base packages; while it seems Axel thinks the real issue is the "FUD" I am spreading about his repository. I sincerly hope we can discuss the impact of repositories overriding base packages instead of flaimbait for FUD issues. From Axel.Thimm at ATrpms.net Mon Oct 16 09:37:12 2006 From: Axel.Thimm at ATrpms.net (Axel Thimm) Date: Mon, 16 Oct 2006 11:37:12 +0200 Subject: Agressive FUD by Fedora contributor In-Reply-To: References: <20061015223725.GG8727@neu.nirvana> <1160952184.30731.9.camel@cutter> <20061015230900.GI8727@neu.nirvana> <20061015235310.GL8727@neu.nirvana> <4533142F.7090607@math.unl.edu> <20061016083414.GQ8727@neu.nirvana> Message-ID: <20061016093712.GY8727@neu.nirvana> On Mon, Oct 16, 2006 at 02:23:58AM -0700, Christopher Stone wrote: > >Indeed any package at ATrpms has potential breakage. But this is true > >for any piece of software and package out there. Or did you invent the > >bug-free software? > I am very dissappointed that you think I am inventing problems. Is it > really that hard for you to accept the possibility that there may > exist a problem with an ATrpms package? For one I obviously stated the opposite, I never said that ATrpms managed to get all bits bug-free. For second you already showed that your statements are to be taken with a grain (or ton) of salt. From a never-ever ATrpms user you have mutated to an often-used-often-burned, later consultant-in-removing-ATrpms-packages and so on. -- Axel.Thimm at ATrpms.net -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 189 bytes Desc: not available URL: From Axel.Thimm at ATrpms.net Mon Oct 16 09:41:18 2006 From: Axel.Thimm at ATrpms.net (Axel Thimm) Date: Mon, 16 Oct 2006 11:41:18 +0200 Subject: Agressive FUD by Fedora contributor In-Reply-To: <4533523C.3060903@hhs.nl> References: <20061015235310.GL8727@neu.nirvana> <4533142F.7090607@math.unl.edu> <1160974736.30731.22.camel@cutter> <20061016080742.GM8727@neu.nirvana> <20061016085700.GS8727@neu.nirvana> <4533523C.3060903@hhs.nl> Message-ID: <20061016094118.GZ8727@neu.nirvana> On Mon, Oct 16, 2006 at 11:34:52AM +0200, Hans de Goede wrote: > Can we please either have a constructive discussion or may I request > that you fight this out by private mail instead? > > Time to end this flamefest. OK, so what do you suggest to do when fedora contributors get into a situation where one is publicly fudding the other in bugzilla or elsewhere on public fedora grounds? A private communication makes no sense, silently allowing FUD to be spread is also no option. I chose to report this to a forum where fedora people can either approve or disapprove of such behaviour and maybe come up with some kind of netiquette for future situations. It was already mentioned that such mechanisms exist elsewhere. -- Axel.Thimm at ATrpms.net -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 189 bytes Desc: not available URL: From dwmw2 at infradead.org Mon Oct 16 09:42:04 2006 From: dwmw2 at infradead.org (David Woodhouse) Date: Mon, 16 Oct 2006 10:42:04 +0100 Subject: Agressive FUD by Fedora contributor In-Reply-To: <20061016091047.GU8727@neu.nirvana> References: <200610151852.k9FIqxUN018347@bugzilla.redhat.com> <200610151759.k9FHxe5W016619@bugzilla.redhat.com> <20061015222455.GF8727@neu.nirvana> <1160951328.30731.3.camel@cutter> <20061015223725.GG8727@neu.nirvana> <1160987703.3376.106.camel@pmac.infradead.org> <20061016091047.GU8727@neu.nirvana> Message-ID: <1160991724.3376.141.camel@pmac.infradead.org> On Mon, 2006-10-16 at 11:10 +0200, Axel Thimm wrote: > There was a misunderstanding, it never occured to me (and obviously > other according to the replies) that there are two expressions > sounding so much alike. Yes, it's a stupid language -- I'm sorry. But it's really rather na?ve of you not to expect such stupidity :) > If I understand correctly there is: > > censuring: To criticize severely > censoring: To examine and expurgate That's right. > (most probably they sound identical) Not quite. The end of 'censor' is like the word 'saw'. The end of 'censure' is like the word 'sure' -- i.e. a 'sh' sound. -- dwmw2 From chris.stone at gmail.com Mon Oct 16 09:43:40 2006 From: chris.stone at gmail.com (Christopher Stone) Date: Mon, 16 Oct 2006 02:43:40 -0700 Subject: Agressive FUD by Fedora contributor In-Reply-To: <20061016093712.GY8727@neu.nirvana> References: <20061015223725.GG8727@neu.nirvana> <20061015230900.GI8727@neu.nirvana> <20061015235310.GL8727@neu.nirvana> <4533142F.7090607@math.unl.edu> <20061016083414.GQ8727@neu.nirvana> <20061016093712.GY8727@neu.nirvana> Message-ID: On 10/16/06, Axel Thimm wrote: > On Mon, Oct 16, 2006 at 02:23:58AM -0700, Christopher Stone wrote: > > >Indeed any package at ATrpms has potential breakage. But this is true > > >for any piece of software and package out there. Or did you invent the > > >bug-free software? > > > I am very dissappointed that you think I am inventing problems. Is it > > really that hard for you to accept the possibility that there may > > exist a problem with an ATrpms package? > > For one I obviously stated the opposite, I never said that ATrpms > managed to get all bits bug-free. For second you already showed that > your statements are to be taken with a grain (or ton) of salt. From a > never-ever ATrpms user you have mutated to an often-used-often-burned, > later consultant-in-removing-ATrpms-packages and so on. And this is constructive how? Let me quote Hans which already got a +1: Can we please either have a constructive discussion or may I request that you fight this out by private mail instead? From Axel.Thimm at ATrpms.net Mon Oct 16 09:44:29 2006 From: Axel.Thimm at ATrpms.net (Axel Thimm) Date: Mon, 16 Oct 2006 11:44:29 +0200 Subject: Agressive FUD by Fedora contributor In-Reply-To: References: <20061015222455.GF8727@neu.nirvana> <1160951328.30731.3.camel@cutter> <20061015223725.GG8727@neu.nirvana> <1160952184.30731.9.camel@cutter> <20061015230900.GI8727@neu.nirvana> <20061015235310.GL8727@neu.nirvana> <20061016082258.GO8727@neu.nirvana> Message-ID: <20061016094429.GA8727@neu.nirvana> On Mon, Oct 16, 2006 at 02:28:03AM -0700, Christopher Stone wrote: > On 10/16/06, Axel Thimm wrote: > >On Sun, Oct 15, 2006 at 05:13:14PM -0700, Christopher Stone wrote: > >> Do you think I am spreading lies here? > > > >Let me just collate some quotes of you in the last 24h: > > > >Your buzilla comment: > >a) I do not use ATrpms so I have never had any problems myself. > > > >A comment in a previous mail > >b) Actually, I did once use ATrpms a long time ago, > > > >A comment in this mail > >c) Let me describe my latest issue with ATrpms which I had to deal > > with not more than a few weeks ago > > > >A couple more replies and you will be admitting to be a regular ATrpms > >user? :) > > Here are the facts which will hopefully clear this up for you. > > 1) I *did* infact use ATrpms a long time ago (probably around FC1 > timeframe but I can't say exactly when). > > 2) The comment in the bug report should have said "I dont CURRENTLY > use ATrpms so therefore I dont CURRENTLY have any problems" So you're cofirming that comment a) in the bugzilla report was either not the truth or a form of selective amnesia. -- Axel.Thimm at ATrpms.net -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 189 bytes Desc: not available URL: From Axel.Thimm at ATrpms.net Mon Oct 16 09:47:31 2006 From: Axel.Thimm at ATrpms.net (Axel Thimm) Date: Mon, 16 Oct 2006 11:47:31 +0200 Subject: Agressive FUD by Fedora contributor In-Reply-To: References: <20061015235310.GL8727@neu.nirvana> <4533142F.7090607@math.unl.edu> <1160974736.30731.22.camel@cutter> <20061016080742.GM8727@neu.nirvana> <20061016085700.GS8727@neu.nirvana> <4533523C.3060903@hhs.nl> Message-ID: <20061016094731.GB8727@neu.nirvana> On Mon, Oct 16, 2006 at 02:37:04AM -0700, Christopher Stone wrote: > On 10/16/06, Hans de Goede wrote: > >Chris, Axel, > > > >Can we please either have a constructive discussion or may I request > >that you fight this out by private mail instead? > > > >Time to end this flamefest. > > I am trying my best to be constructive here Hans. ??? > I very much want to end the flamebait parts of this thread, but it > takes two to make that happen. I sincerly hope we can concentrate on > the real issues. But what I consider a real issue seems to be > different than what Axel considers to be a real issue. You started a completely unmotivated raging crusade against my packaging work, and now try to hide behind "constructivism"? This thread is about your bad behaviour/fudding, not any existing or non-existing technical issues. Don't try to divert from that, please. -- Axel.Thimm at ATrpms.net -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 189 bytes Desc: not available URL: From chris.stone at gmail.com Mon Oct 16 09:49:14 2006 From: chris.stone at gmail.com (Christopher Stone) Date: Mon, 16 Oct 2006 02:49:14 -0700 Subject: Agressive FUD by Fedora contributor In-Reply-To: <20061016094429.GA8727@neu.nirvana> References: <20061015222455.GF8727@neu.nirvana> <20061015223725.GG8727@neu.nirvana> <1160952184.30731.9.camel@cutter> <20061015230900.GI8727@neu.nirvana> <20061015235310.GL8727@neu.nirvana> <20061016082258.GO8727@neu.nirvana> <20061016094429.GA8727@neu.nirvana> Message-ID: On 10/16/06, Axel Thimm wrote: > So you're cofirming that comment a) in the bugzilla report was either > not the truth or a form of selective amnesia. And this is constructive how? Let me quote Hans which already got a +1: Can we please either have a constructive discussion or may I request that you fight this out by private mail instead? From Axel.Thimm at ATrpms.net Mon Oct 16 09:50:13 2006 From: Axel.Thimm at ATrpms.net (Axel Thimm) Date: Mon, 16 Oct 2006 11:50:13 +0200 Subject: Agressive FUD by Fedora contributor In-Reply-To: References: <20061015230900.GI8727@neu.nirvana> <20061015235310.GL8727@neu.nirvana> <4533142F.7090607@math.unl.edu> <20061016083414.GQ8727@neu.nirvana> <20061016093712.GY8727@neu.nirvana> Message-ID: <20061016095013.GC8727@neu.nirvana> On Mon, Oct 16, 2006 at 02:43:40AM -0700, Christopher Stone wrote: > On 10/16/06, Axel Thimm wrote: > >On Mon, Oct 16, 2006 at 02:23:58AM -0700, Christopher Stone wrote: > >> >Indeed any package at ATrpms has potential breakage. But this is true > >> >for any piece of software and package out there. Or did you invent the > >> >bug-free software? > > > >> I am very dissappointed that you think I am inventing problems. Is it > >> really that hard for you to accept the possibility that there may > >> exist a problem with an ATrpms package? > > > >For one I obviously stated the opposite, I never said that ATrpms > >managed to get all bits bug-free. For second you already showed that > >your statements are to be taken with a grain (or ton) of salt. From a > >never-ever ATrpms user you have mutated to an often-used-often-burned, > >later consultant-in-removing-ATrpms-packages and so on. > > And this is constructive how? And how is trying to twist my words to mean the opposite add to being constructive? -- Axel.Thimm at ATrpms.net -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 189 bytes Desc: not available URL: From Axel.Thimm at ATrpms.net Mon Oct 16 09:54:45 2006 From: Axel.Thimm at ATrpms.net (Axel Thimm) Date: Mon, 16 Oct 2006 11:54:45 +0200 Subject: Agressive FUD by Fedora contributor In-Reply-To: References: <20061015223725.GG8727@neu.nirvana> <1160952184.30731.9.camel@cutter> <20061015230900.GI8727@neu.nirvana> <20061015235310.GL8727@neu.nirvana> <20061016082258.GO8727@neu.nirvana> <20061016094429.GA8727@neu.nirvana> Message-ID: <20061016095445.GD8727@neu.nirvana> On Mon, Oct 16, 2006 at 02:49:14AM -0700, Christopher Stone wrote: > On 10/16/06, Axel Thimm wrote: > >So you're cofirming that comment a) in the bugzilla report was either > >not the truth or a form of selective amnesia. > > And this is constructive how? Let me quote Hans which already got a +1: > > Can we please either have a constructive discussion or may I request > that you fight this out by private mail instead? Please don't reply on each mail with cut and paste, that doesn't count as constructive. And yes, the fact that you trap yourself into lies and fud is constructive as it invalidates your argumentation. Since you seem to present your arguments with different realities each time it is important to notice that and weigh your arguments accordingly. -- Axel.Thimm at ATrpms.net -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 189 bytes Desc: not available URL: From chris.stone at gmail.com Mon Oct 16 09:54:55 2006 From: chris.stone at gmail.com (Christopher Stone) Date: Mon, 16 Oct 2006 02:54:55 -0700 Subject: Agressive FUD by Fedora contributor In-Reply-To: <20061016094731.GB8727@neu.nirvana> References: <20061015235310.GL8727@neu.nirvana> <4533142F.7090607@math.unl.edu> <1160974736.30731.22.camel@cutter> <20061016080742.GM8727@neu.nirvana> <20061016085700.GS8727@neu.nirvana> <4533523C.3060903@hhs.nl> <20061016094731.GB8727@neu.nirvana> Message-ID: On 10/16/06, Axel Thimm wrote: > On Mon, Oct 16, 2006 at 02:37:04AM -0700, Christopher Stone wrote: > > On 10/16/06, Hans de Goede wrote: > > >Chris, Axel, > > > > > >Can we please either have a constructive discussion or may I request > > >that you fight this out by private mail instead? > > > > > >Time to end this flamefest. > > > > I am trying my best to be constructive here Hans. > > ??? > > > I very much want to end the flamebait parts of this thread, but it > > takes two to make that happen. I sincerly hope we can concentrate on > > the real issues. But what I consider a real issue seems to be > > different than what Axel considers to be a real issue. > > You started a completely unmotivated raging crusade against my > packaging work, and now try to hide behind "constructivism"? > > This thread is about your bad behaviour/fudding, not any existing or > non-existing technical issues. Don't try to divert from that, please. Hardly completely unmotivated. The fact that I have spent many hours of my life helping other people solve problems only to find out it was caused by ATrpms has caused me to recommend nobody use your repository. And believe me, I am not the only one. The standard response in #fedora once someone says they use ATrpms is to ask them to remove the ATrpms repository. This is standard among everyone in the channel, not just me. My FUDing is *nothing* compared to the damage your repository has done by forking Fedora and essentially creating your own distribution. If this thread is about FUDing, it should have ended LONG ago. We are *trying* to get this thread off the FUD issue and onto more important issues which have to deal with potential bugs in packages. But you seem to think FUDing is a far more important issue to discuss. From alan at redhat.com Mon Oct 16 09:59:23 2006 From: alan at redhat.com (Alan Cox) Date: Mon, 16 Oct 2006 05:59:23 -0400 Subject: Agressive FUD by Fedora contributor In-Reply-To: References: <20061015230900.GI8727@neu.nirvana> <20061015235310.GL8727@neu.nirvana> <4533142F.7090607@math.unl.edu> <20061016083414.GQ8727@neu.nirvana> <20061016093712.GY8727@neu.nirvana> Message-ID: <20061016095923.GA14379@devserv.devel.redhat.com> On Mon, Oct 16, 2006 at 02:43:40AM -0700, Christopher Stone wrote: > Can we please either have a constructive discussion or may I request > that you fight this out by private mail instead? Please take it /dev/null instead if you are going to "fight it out" rather than work it out. Alan From Axel.Thimm at ATrpms.net Mon Oct 16 10:04:58 2006 From: Axel.Thimm at ATrpms.net (Axel Thimm) Date: Mon, 16 Oct 2006 12:04:58 +0200 Subject: Agressive FUD by Fedora contributor In-Reply-To: References: <4533142F.7090607@math.unl.edu> <1160974736.30731.22.camel@cutter> <20061016080742.GM8727@neu.nirvana> <20061016085700.GS8727@neu.nirvana> <4533523C.3060903@hhs.nl> <20061016094731.GB8727@neu.nirvana> Message-ID: <20061016100458.GE8727@neu.nirvana> On Mon, Oct 16, 2006 at 02:54:55AM -0700, Christopher Stone wrote: > >You started a completely unmotivated raging crusade against my > >packaging work, and now try to hide behind "constructivism"? > > > >This thread is about your bad behaviour/fudding, not any existing or > >non-existing technical issues. Don't try to divert from that, please. > > My FUDing is *nothing* compared to the damage your repository has done > by forking Fedora and essentially creating your own distribution. If > this thread is about FUDing, it should have ended LONG ago. This thread *is* about fudding, check the subject. > We are *trying* to get this thread off the FUD issue and onto more > important issues which have to deal with potential bugs in packages. > But you seem to think FUDing is a far more important issue to discuss. "Off the FUD issue": Are you admitting to have been fudding? Let's get the FUD issue resolved and we'll worry about *true* technical issues in another thread. What I'd like to see is o general consensus about disapprovement of the FUD in the bugzilla (I think this has almost already happened) o A netiquette and deescalation mechanism like some quoted to put in place for future similar situations It just can't be accepted that people with a fedora account represent the project in such an inappropriate way! -- Axel.Thimm at ATrpms.net -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 189 bytes Desc: not available URL: From chris.stone at gmail.com Mon Oct 16 10:19:28 2006 From: chris.stone at gmail.com (Christopher Stone) Date: Mon, 16 Oct 2006 03:19:28 -0700 Subject: Agressive FUD by Fedora contributor In-Reply-To: <20061016100458.GE8727@neu.nirvana> References: <4533142F.7090607@math.unl.edu> <20061016080742.GM8727@neu.nirvana> <20061016085700.GS8727@neu.nirvana> <4533523C.3060903@hhs.nl> <20061016094731.GB8727@neu.nirvana> <20061016100458.GE8727@neu.nirvana> Message-ID: On 10/16/06, Axel Thimm wrote: > "Off the FUD issue": Are you admitting to have been fudding? Let's get > the FUD issue resolved and we'll worry about *true* technical issues > in another thread. I will admit that I could have been more tactful. I will admit it is possible to use ATrpms without messing up your system. I will admit that many people use ATrpms without any problems. That being said, I will continue to encourage people to *NOT* use ATrpms as long as the repository continues to override base packages. > > What I'd like to see is > > o general consensus about disapprovement of the FUD in the bugzilla > (I think this has almost already happened) I would like to see valid opinions not be classified as "FUD" just because you don't agree with them. > > o A netiquette and deescalation mechanism like some quoted to put in > place for future similar situations > > It just can't be accepted that people with a fedora account represent > the project in such an inappropriate way! Creating a repository that forks Fedora and essentially creates its own distribution and puts the burdon on the community to support two separate distributions is much more inappropriate as far as I'm concerned. It just can't be accepted that repository maintainers represent the project in such an inappropriate way! From jwboyer at jdub.homelinux.org Mon Oct 16 11:01:35 2006 From: jwboyer at jdub.homelinux.org (Josh Boyer) Date: Mon, 16 Oct 2006 06:01:35 -0500 Subject: Agressive FUD by Fedora contributor (was: [Bug 210775]) In-Reply-To: References: <200610151852.k9FIqxUN018347@bugzilla.redhat.com> <200610151759.k9FHxe5W016619@bugzilla.redhat.com> <20061015222455.GF8727@neu.nirvana> <1160954137.14932.37.camel@localhost.localdomain> <20061015231933.GC20785@devserv.devel.redhat.com> <1160954771.30731.14.camel@cutter> Message-ID: <1160996495.18463.21.camel@vader.jdub.homelinux.org> On Sun, 2006-10-15 at 23:51 -0700, Christopher Stone wrote: > > I think that a repository that overrides base packages is far more > damaging than any comments an individual can make on bugzilla or the > mailing list. It is essentially forking Fedora and causes a lot of > problems for the Fedora community. Such repositories are essentially > creating their own distribution and should not be acceptable. It > would be better for everyone, in my opinion, if these repositories > created their own distribution instead. > > Therefore, I propose that the 'protectbase' plugin, be actually > integrated into yum proper, and instead make a plugin which allows > repositories to override core packages. That is, the default should > be that no repository is allowed to override base packages unless you > specifically install a plugin to allow them to do so. > > Comments? File an RFE in bugzilla. josh From mitr at redhat.com Mon Oct 16 11:02:33 2006 From: mitr at redhat.com (Miloslav Trmac) Date: Mon, 16 Oct 2006 13:02:33 +0200 Subject: Agressive FUD by Fedora contributor In-Reply-To: References: <200610151852.k9FIqxUN018347@bugzilla.redhat.com> <200610151759.k9FHxe5W016619@bugzilla.redhat.com> <20061015222455.GF8727@neu.nirvana> <1160951328.30731.3.camel@cutter> <20061015223725.GG8727@neu.nirvana> <1160952184.30731.9.camel@cutter> <20061015230900.GI8727@neu.nirvana> <20061015235310.GL8727@neu.nirvana> Message-ID: <453366C9.6020102@redhat.com> Axel, Christopher Stone napsal(a): > fetchmail.x86_64 6.3.4-1.1_6.fc5.at atrpms If all you want changed is including fetchmailconf, why don't you build it as a single package, without overriding Core's fetchmail? Mirek From Axel.Thimm at ATrpms.net Mon Oct 16 11:11:11 2006 From: Axel.Thimm at ATrpms.net (Axel Thimm) Date: Mon, 16 Oct 2006 13:11:11 +0200 Subject: Agressive FUD by Fedora contributor In-Reply-To: <453366C9.6020102@redhat.com> References: <20061015222455.GF8727@neu.nirvana> <1160951328.30731.3.camel@cutter> <20061015223725.GG8727@neu.nirvana> <1160952184.30731.9.camel@cutter> <20061015230900.GI8727@neu.nirvana> <20061015235310.GL8727@neu.nirvana> <453366C9.6020102@redhat.com> Message-ID: <20061016111111.GJ8727@neu.nirvana> On Mon, Oct 16, 2006 at 01:02:33PM +0200, Miloslav Trmac wrote: > Axel, > Christopher Stone napsal(a): > > fetchmail.x86_64 6.3.4-1.1_6.fc5.at atrpms > If all you want changed is including fetchmailconf, why don't you build > it as a single package, without overriding Core's fetchmail? > Mirek I answered in PM. This thread is about Chistopher Stone's fudding, and should not defocus from there. -- Axel.Thimm at ATrpms.net -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 189 bytes Desc: not available URL: From Axel.Thimm at ATrpms.net Mon Oct 16 11:15:18 2006 From: Axel.Thimm at ATrpms.net (Axel Thimm) Date: Mon, 16 Oct 2006 13:15:18 +0200 Subject: Agressive FUD by Fedora contributor In-Reply-To: References: <20061016080742.GM8727@neu.nirvana> <20061016085700.GS8727@neu.nirvana> <4533523C.3060903@hhs.nl> <20061016094731.GB8727@neu.nirvana> <20061016100458.GE8727@neu.nirvana> Message-ID: <20061016111518.GK8727@neu.nirvana> On Mon, Oct 16, 2006 at 03:19:28AM -0700, Christopher Stone wrote: > >What I'd like to see is > > > >o general consensus about disapprovement of the FUD in the bugzilla > > (I think this has almost already happened) > > I would like to see valid opinions not be classified as "FUD" just > because you don't agree with them. No, it's beyond not agreeing. It's about you creating fear, uncertainty and doubts w/o real facts to back up doomsday. > >o A netiquette and deescalation mechanism like some quoted to put in > > place for future similar situations > > > >It just can't be accepted that people with a fedora account represent > >the project in such an inappropriate way! > > Creating a repository that forks Fedora and essentially creates its > own distribution and puts the burdon on the community to support two > separate distributions is much more inappropriate as far as I'm > concerned. It just can't be accepted that repository maintainers > represent the project in such an inappropriate way! Is there an echo in here? ATrpms does not fork Fedora it is a 3rd party repository supporting among other Fedora. There is no burden on you to support anything, and stop calling yourself "community" ;) -- Axel.Thimm at ATrpms.net -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 189 bytes Desc: not available URL: From j.w.r.degoede at hhs.nl Mon Oct 16 11:36:29 2006 From: j.w.r.degoede at hhs.nl (Hans de Goede) Date: Mon, 16 Oct 2006 13:36:29 +0200 Subject: Agressive FUD by Fedora contributor In-Reply-To: <20061016094118.GZ8727@neu.nirvana> References: <20061015235310.GL8727@neu.nirvana> <4533142F.7090607@math.unl.edu> <1160974736.30731.22.camel@cutter> <20061016080742.GM8727@neu.nirvana> <20061016085700.GS8727@neu.nirvana> <4533523C.3060903@hhs.nl> <20061016094118.GZ8727@neu.nirvana> Message-ID: <45336EBD.4000205@hhs.nl> Axel Thimm wrote: > On Mon, Oct 16, 2006 at 11:34:52AM +0200, Hans de Goede wrote: >> Can we please either have a constructive discussion or may I request >> that you fight this out by private mail instead? >> >> Time to end this flamefest. > > OK, so what do you suggest to do when fedora contributors get into a > situation where one is publicly fudding the other in bugzilla or > elsewhere on public fedora grounds? A private communication makes no > sense, silently allowing FUD to be spread is also no option. > I do NOT want to get involved in this. Count to 10, go hit a brick wall a couple of times, either way cool off, please. (pretty pretty please please). Regards, Hans From jwboyer at jdub.homelinux.org Mon Oct 16 11:26:10 2006 From: jwboyer at jdub.homelinux.org (Josh Boyer) Date: Mon, 16 Oct 2006 06:26:10 -0500 Subject: Agressive FUD by Fedora contributor In-Reply-To: <20061016111111.GJ8727@neu.nirvana> References: <20061015222455.GF8727@neu.nirvana> <1160951328.30731.3.camel@cutter> <20061015223725.GG8727@neu.nirvana> <1160952184.30731.9.camel@cutter> <20061015230900.GI8727@neu.nirvana> <20061015235310.GL8727@neu.nirvana> <453366C9.6020102@redhat.com> <20061016111111.GJ8727@neu.nirvana> Message-ID: <1160997970.18463.24.camel@vader.jdub.homelinux.org> On Mon, 2006-10-16 at 13:11 +0200, Axel Thimm wrote: > On Mon, Oct 16, 2006 at 01:02:33PM +0200, Miloslav Trmac wrote: > > Axel, > > Christopher Stone napsal(a): > > > fetchmail.x86_64 6.3.4-1.1_6.fc5.at atrpms > > If all you want changed is including fetchmailconf, why don't you build > > it as a single package, without overriding Core's fetchmail? > > Mirek > > I answered in PM. This thread is about Chistopher Stone's fudding, and > should not defocus from there. Ok, we got it. You think Christopher is spreading FUD. Some people may agree. Now kindly respond to a real technical issue like the one Miloslav just asked and do something fscking productive. josh From mitr at redhat.com Mon Oct 16 11:45:18 2006 From: mitr at redhat.com (Miloslav Trmac) Date: Mon, 16 Oct 2006 13:45:18 +0200 Subject: Agressive FUD by Fedora contributor In-Reply-To: <20061016111111.GJ8727@neu.nirvana> References: <20061015222455.GF8727@neu.nirvana> <1160951328.30731.3.camel@cutter> <20061015223725.GG8727@neu.nirvana> <1160952184.30731.9.camel@cutter> <20061015230900.GI8727@neu.nirvana> <20061015235310.GL8727@neu.nirvana> <453366C9.6020102@redhat.com> <20061016111111.GJ8727@neu.nirvana> Message-ID: <453370CE.7050500@redhat.com> Axel Thimm napsal(a): > On Mon, Oct 16, 2006 at 01:02:33PM +0200, Miloslav Trmac wrote: >> Christopher Stone napsal(a): >>> fetchmail.x86_64 6.3.4-1.1_6.fc5.at atrpms >> If all you want changed is including fetchmailconf, why don't you build >> it as a single package, without overriding Core's fetchmail? > I answered in PM. This thread is about Chistopher Stone's fudding, and > should not defocus from there. Right, that's why this shouldn't be left private. In the PM I was told you your fetchmail also fixes a bug that - AFAIK was never reported to bugzilla.redhat.com - I can't find reported at bugzilla.atrpms.net - is not even mentioned in the change log of the ATrpms package This seems to support Christopher's opinion that "ATrpms is forking Fedora". Mirek From Axel.Thimm at ATrpms.net Mon Oct 16 11:57:06 2006 From: Axel.Thimm at ATrpms.net (Axel Thimm) Date: Mon, 16 Oct 2006 13:57:06 +0200 Subject: Agressive FUD by Fedora contributor In-Reply-To: <45336EBD.4000205@hhs.nl> References: <4533142F.7090607@math.unl.edu> <1160974736.30731.22.camel@cutter> <20061016080742.GM8727@neu.nirvana> <20061016085700.GS8727@neu.nirvana> <4533523C.3060903@hhs.nl> <20061016094118.GZ8727@neu.nirvana> <45336EBD.4000205@hhs.nl> Message-ID: <20061016115706.GM8727@neu.nirvana> On Mon, Oct 16, 2006 at 01:36:29PM +0200, Hans de Goede wrote: > Axel Thimm wrote: > > On Mon, Oct 16, 2006 at 11:34:52AM +0200, Hans de Goede wrote: > >> Can we please either have a constructive discussion or may I request > >> that you fight this out by private mail instead? > >> > >> Time to end this flamefest. > > > > OK, so what do you suggest to do when fedora contributors get into a > > situation where one is publicly fudding the other in bugzilla or > > elsewhere on public fedora grounds? A private communication makes no > > sense, silently allowing FUD to be spread is also no option. > > > > I do NOT want to get involved in this. Count to 10, go hit a brick wall > a couple of times, either way cool off, please. (pretty pretty please > please). I'm not asking you to get involved. You didn't like that this escalated to this list and I'm just asking what other options there are? Just imagine getting into a similar situation (e.g. someone is publicly and aggressively spreading fud about you or your work w/o any motivation whatsoever) and what you would do. What would you do if something similar happens tomorrow again between fedora contributor X and Y? It will evolve to another such thread that you (and I) don't like, so coming up with a general escalation management solution is better than to simply complain about the state of affairs. Furthermore there is no sentiment to cool off. -- Axel.Thimm at ATrpms.net -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 189 bytes Desc: not available URL: From jwboyer at jdub.homelinux.org Mon Oct 16 12:14:05 2006 From: jwboyer at jdub.homelinux.org (Josh Boyer) Date: Mon, 16 Oct 2006 07:14:05 -0500 Subject: Agressive FUD by Fedora contributor In-Reply-To: <20061016115706.GM8727@neu.nirvana> References: <4533142F.7090607@math.unl.edu> <1160974736.30731.22.camel@cutter> <20061016080742.GM8727@neu.nirvana> <20061016085700.GS8727@neu.nirvana> <4533523C.3060903@hhs.nl> <20061016094118.GZ8727@neu.nirvana> <45336EBD.4000205@hhs.nl> <20061016115706.GM8727@neu.nirvana> Message-ID: <1161000845.3172.6.camel@zod.rchland.ibm.com> On Mon, 2006-10-16 at 13:57 +0200, Axel Thimm wrote: > > I'm not asking you to get involved. You didn't like that this > escalated to this list and I'm just asking what other options there > are? Just imagine getting into a similar situation (e.g. someone is > publicly and aggressively spreading fud about you or your work w/o any > motivation whatsoever) and what you would do. > > What would you do if something similar happens tomorrow again between > fedora contributor X and Y? It will evolve to another such thread that > you (and I) don't like, so coming up with a general escalation > management solution is better than to simply complain about the state > of affairs. No. Sorry. This list, FESCo, or FAB are not here to solve petty bickering differences. Even if we wanted to, we couldn't because this is a _volunteer_ project. We have no more control over contributors than you do. If you can't work it out privately amongst yourselves, then so be it. But putting a comment in a bugzilla or starting a thread on a mailing list is not grounds for removal of CVS access or removal from the fedorabugs group. And those are really the only two things that _could_ be done. What this list _is_ for, is discussing technical matters. So if either of you want to start talking about why ATrpms overrides Fedora Core and Fedora Extras packages, then we're all ears. That seems like a technical discussion worthy of having. And one that just might build that bridge that was talked about earlier. josh From Axel.Thimm at ATrpms.net Mon Oct 16 12:16:01 2006 From: Axel.Thimm at ATrpms.net (Axel Thimm) Date: Mon, 16 Oct 2006 14:16:01 +0200 Subject: fetchmail (was: Agressive FUD by Fedora contributor) In-Reply-To: <453370CE.7050500@redhat.com> References: <20061015223725.GG8727@neu.nirvana> <1160952184.30731.9.camel@cutter> <20061015230900.GI8727@neu.nirvana> <20061015235310.GL8727@neu.nirvana> <453366C9.6020102@redhat.com> <20061016111111.GJ8727@neu.nirvana> <453370CE.7050500@redhat.com> Message-ID: <20061016121601.GN8727@neu.nirvana> On Mon, Oct 16, 2006 at 01:45:18PM +0200, Miloslav Trmac wrote: > In the PM I was told you your fetchmail also fixes a bug that > - AFAIK was never reported to bugzilla.redhat.com > - I can't find reported at bugzilla.atrpms.net > - is not even mentioned in the change log of the ATrpms package > > This seems to support Christopher's opinion that "ATrpms is forking Fedora". A forgotten changelog leads to a package forking a distribution? In that case every distribution would consist of several forks of itself :) The change was back in 2003 and was requested by users (I myself don't use fetchmail). After three years I can't name the channel anymore but simple googling shows subsequent user demand for that same feature, for example half a year later on freshrpms' list: http://lists.freshrpms.net/pipermail/freshrpms-list/2004-April/008805.html I agree, if it isn't bugzilla'd it aint a bug. But back in 2003 was even before Fedora was created, and pushing bug reports through RHL9 and friends was a nightmare (or otherwise said close to impossible). But perhaps there is even something in bugzilla.redhat.com, like for example #110668 that addresses one on the issues (e.g. krb support), although that report was two months after I started fixing the package. The bug report does look confusing though. Anyway to cut to the chase I don't think the two fixes in the fetchmail rpm justify a fork, or labeling "broken by ATrpms", and I already wrote in PM that I'd rather see this in Fedora proper now and get rid of this package. -- Axel.Thimm at ATrpms.net -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 189 bytes Desc: not available URL: From Axel.Thimm at ATrpms.net Mon Oct 16 12:18:32 2006 From: Axel.Thimm at ATrpms.net (Axel Thimm) Date: Mon, 16 Oct 2006 14:18:32 +0200 Subject: Agressive FUD by Fedora contributor In-Reply-To: <1161000845.3172.6.camel@zod.rchland.ibm.com> References: <1160974736.30731.22.camel@cutter> <20061016080742.GM8727@neu.nirvana> <20061016085700.GS8727@neu.nirvana> <4533523C.3060903@hhs.nl> <20061016094118.GZ8727@neu.nirvana> <45336EBD.4000205@hhs.nl> <20061016115706.GM8727@neu.nirvana> <1161000845.3172.6.camel@zod.rchland.ibm.com> Message-ID: <20061016121832.GO8727@neu.nirvana> On Mon, Oct 16, 2006 at 07:14:05AM -0500, Josh Boyer wrote: > But putting a comment in a bugzilla or starting a thread on a mailing > list is not grounds for removal of CVS access or removal from the > fedorabugs group. And those are really the only two things that _could_ > be done. Oops, you must have completely misread something, consoring or throwing out Christopher out of the contributers wasn't suggested. Censuring with a sharp s was ;) -- Axel.Thimm at ATrpms.net -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 189 bytes Desc: not available URL: From jwboyer at jdub.homelinux.org Mon Oct 16 12:41:20 2006 From: jwboyer at jdub.homelinux.org (Josh Boyer) Date: Mon, 16 Oct 2006 07:41:20 -0500 Subject: Agressive FUD by Fedora contributor In-Reply-To: <20061016121832.GO8727@neu.nirvana> References: <1160974736.30731.22.camel@cutter> <20061016080742.GM8727@neu.nirvana> <20061016085700.GS8727@neu.nirvana> <4533523C.3060903@hhs.nl> <20061016094118.GZ8727@neu.nirvana> <45336EBD.4000205@hhs.nl> <20061016115706.GM8727@neu.nirvana> <1161000845.3172.6.camel@zod.rchland.ibm.com> <20061016121832.GO8727@neu.nirvana> Message-ID: <1161002480.3172.13.camel@zod.rchland.ibm.com> On Mon, 2006-10-16 at 14:18 +0200, Axel Thimm wrote: > On Mon, Oct 16, 2006 at 07:14:05AM -0500, Josh Boyer wrote: > > But putting a comment in a bugzilla or starting a thread on a mailing > > list is not grounds for removal of CVS access or removal from the > > fedorabugs group. And those are really the only two things that _could_ > > be done. > > Oops, you must have completely misread something, consoring or > throwing out Christopher out of the contributers wasn't > suggested. Censuring with a sharp s was ;) No, I understood completely. And we have nothing we can do to censure either. The definition of "censure" as it applies in this case: "an official reprimand, as by a legislative body of one of it's members" The only reprimand we have is pulling CVS or fedorabugs access. And that is the only one I think we should have. Nobody here has any authority to tell a contributor "bad Christopher! you shouldn't do that." Know why? Because it doesn't accomplish anything, and it doesn't have any effect. Period. Someone could say that and the contributor could just ignore it. This whole damn discussion is pointless! josh From jkeating at redhat.com Mon Oct 16 13:12:09 2006 From: jkeating at redhat.com (Jesse Keating) Date: Mon, 16 Oct 2006 09:12:09 -0400 Subject: Make it stop!! Message-ID: <200610160912.09156.jkeating@redhat.com> Get yer bickering off this list. We've worked very hard to create a list environment that all maintainers, core and extras alike can be a part of, so that announcements and technical/project discussions can happen in a high signal, low noise list. Convincing busy maintainers to be a part of this list and pay attention to it is greatly undermined when a thread of doom such as this weekend's shows up, and goes on, and on, and on. This thread has NO business being on maintainer's list. Please, for the love of all that is sacred and beautiful, take it somewhere else and leave it somewhere else. Please give this list a fighting chance. -- Jesse Keating Release Engineer: Fedora -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 189 bytes Desc: not available URL: From meme at daughtersoftiresias.org Mon Oct 16 16:36:40 2006 From: meme at daughtersoftiresias.org (Karen Pease) Date: Mon, 16 Oct 2006 11:36:40 -0500 Subject: Agressive FUD by Fedora contributor (was: [Bug 210775]) In-Reply-To: <1160996495.18463.21.camel@vader.jdub.homelinux.org> References: <200610151852.k9FIqxUN018347@bugzilla.redhat.com> <1160996495.18463.21.camel@vader.jdub.homelinux.org> Message-ID: <200610161136.41419.meme@daughtersoftiresias.org> Oy -- as the person who posted the package whose thread started this whole conflict, I apologize for any role I may have had in the process. Re: Censure: The typical form of censure is a figurative "slap on the wrist," with no other penalties than the knowledge that others agree that you've stepped out of line. Re: Appropriate way to express dissatisfaction with a package: Refer a user to a thread on the subject that both sides know about. That way it can't be considered a sneak attack on a repo's credibility. Re: ATrpms reliability: I've used ATrpms for a long time now, and I've never had a problem with it. What Christopher is experiencing is called a "reporting bias". It's a widely known statistical problem. He only ever gets to see those who do have a problem, and thus the scale of the problem appears greatly magnified from how severe it is. When you think of how many downloads are made per day, the lack of problem reporters from other repos is simply a testament to how thorough this whole system in general is. It simply would suggest, if true, that ATrpms meets a 99.9% quality standard while others meet a 99.99% quality standard. Re: Preservebase: I think this is the perfect solution to Christopher's complaint. People can disable it as needed. I've often wondered why Yum branches so much of its functionality into plugins. Why aren't downloadonly and downgradepackage defaults, for example? Apt does it. Seems silly not to. Re: Forked packages: To be honest, I can understand the concept of forked packages, esp. back before Fedora made it easier to get changes into packages into the RH line. What immediately comes to mind is build options: to reduce dependencies, people tend to configure packages with the minimum number of deps to meet their functionality requirements. If a repo needs more functionality that requires additional deps, they either have to get the original distro to carry those deps (sometimes a hard sell, or even impossible if the licensing doesn't work out), or fork. Not that forked packages are a good thing. I think it should be standard practice with every forked package to, once a month or so, at least put forth a minimal effort to get the issue that caused it to be forked resolved. If a maintainer doesn't do this, then, sure, there is just cause for complaints. If they do, then I think they're doing their job. Re: Language: Please keep this to PMs. Arguing about linguistics with a person who doesn't speak your language natively is just mean. Yes, a PM can help them learn to use it better. But harping on them in public is unfair. I daresay that 90% or more of the native English speakers on this list aren't as fluent as Axel in *any* other language. Learning languages is difficult. Just my six cents. ;) I'll keep quiet from now on. - Karen From caillon at redhat.com Mon Oct 16 17:22:12 2006 From: caillon at redhat.com (Christopher Aillon) Date: Mon, 16 Oct 2006 13:22:12 -0400 Subject: Agressive FUD by Fedora contributor In-Reply-To: <20061016111111.GJ8727@neu.nirvana> References: <20061015222455.GF8727@neu.nirvana> <1160951328.30731.3.camel@cutter> <20061015223725.GG8727@neu.nirvana> <1160952184.30731.9.camel@cutter> <20061015230900.GI8727@neu.nirvana> <20061015235310.GL8727@neu.nirvana> <453366C9.6020102@redhat.com> <20061016111111.GJ8727@neu.nirvana> Message-ID: <4533BFC4.4050400@redhat.com> Axel Thimm wrote: > On Mon, Oct 16, 2006 at 01:02:33PM +0200, Miloslav Trmac wrote: >> Axel, >> Christopher Stone napsal(a): >>> fetchmail.x86_64 6.3.4-1.1_6.fc5.at atrpms >> If all you want changed is including fetchmailconf, why don't you build >> it as a single package, without overriding Core's fetchmail? >> Mirek > > I answered in PM. This thread is about Chistopher Stone's fudding, and > should not defocus from there. Axel, everyone is exposed to misinformation in Open Source. Red Hat as a company is the target of a lot. My packages, specifically Firefox, lately have been the target of a lot of misinformation lately. All you can do is point out your arguments. There's nothing stopping anyone from spreading whatever information they want. Both you and cstone have said your pieces. By dragging this out, you are both looking very childish. Axel, you are allowed to ship whatever packages you want, whether others like it or not. Cstone, you are allowed to file bugs with patches to Core packages to include changes. Somewhere, there is a happy medium. From tibbs at math.uh.edu Mon Oct 16 20:16:51 2006 From: tibbs at math.uh.edu (Jason L Tibbitts III) Date: Mon, 16 Oct 2006 15:16:51 -0500 Subject: Co-maintainers to assist upstreams with their packages in Extras In-Reply-To: <20061016063518.GA2339@free.fr> (Patrice Dumas's message of "Mon, 16 Oct 2006 08:35:18 +0200") References: <20061015084621.GC2323@free.fr> <20061015190030.GD8727@neu.nirvana> <20061016063518.GA2339@free.fr> Message-ID: >>>>> "PD" == Patrice Dumas writes: PD> In any case there is one maintainer who has the final word, isn't PD> it? Only by agreement, though. There is no infrastructure in place to enforce anything like this. Which is the entirety of my original point: let the arrangements surrounding each package be determined by those involved in the maintenance of that package. You originally said that you did not think upstream developers should be allowed to be "primary maintainers". Going back to that first reply: ----- PD> After some thinking and looking at some packages, I came to the PD> conclusion that having upstream as primary maintainer in fedora PD> should be avoided if possible. ----- I object to this as a general rule. Not only is there no way to enforce this except by agreement, but it is simply not possible to reasonably make that generalization and I also find it to take a rather dim view of the potentially enormous contributions which could be made by upstream developers if we could only get them interested. Let the maintenance of individual packages be dictated by the maintainers of those packages in the way that best suits the situation. So, is there anyone interested in co-maintaining libssa, or one of the other packages from upstream developers awaiting sponsorship? (I think Kevin/nirik has a list of those somewhere; perhaps he'd be so kind as to post it.) - J< From gemi at bluewin.ch Mon Oct 16 21:53:38 2006 From: gemi at bluewin.ch (=?ISO-8859-1?Q?G=E9rard?= Milmeister) Date: Mon, 16 Oct 2006 23:53:38 +0200 Subject: List of unowned directories Message-ID: <1161035618.10154.6.camel@scriabin.tannenrauch.ch> I started to file bugzilla entries for unowned directories based on my local install. I then wrote a small program that lists all unowned directories from the FC-5 repositories "core" and "extras": http://math.ifi.unizh.ch/fedora/dirs.unowned The list is sorted, but does not include the packages the directories belong too. I suggest that all maintainers of packages in core and extras take a look at it. It doesn't take that long to scan. -- G?rard Milmeister Langackerstrasse 49 CH-8057 Z?rich From garrick at usc.edu Mon Oct 16 22:13:30 2006 From: garrick at usc.edu (Garrick Staples) Date: Mon, 16 Oct 2006 15:13:30 -0700 Subject: List of unowned directories In-Reply-To: <1161035618.10154.6.camel@scriabin.tannenrauch.ch> References: <1161035618.10154.6.camel@scriabin.tannenrauch.ch> Message-ID: <20061016221330.GF2077@polop.usc.edu> On Mon, Oct 16, 2006 at 11:53:38PM +0200, G?rard Milmeister alleged: > I started to file bugzilla entries for unowned directories based on my > local install. > I then wrote a small program that lists all unowned directories from the > FC-5 repositories "core" and "extras": > http://math.ifi.unizh.ch/fedora/dirs.unowned > The list is sorted, but does not include the packages the directories > belong too. I suggest that all maintainers of packages in core and > extras take a look at it. It doesn't take that long to scan. Nice! I see two entries from torque that I'll fix up for FC6. -- Garrick Staples, Linux/HPCC Administrator University of Southern California -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 189 bytes Desc: not available URL: From tibbs at math.uh.edu Mon Oct 16 22:34:36 2006 From: tibbs at math.uh.edu (Jason L Tibbitts III) Date: Mon, 16 Oct 2006 17:34:36 -0500 Subject: List of unowned directories In-Reply-To: <1161035618.10154.6.camel@scriabin.tannenrauch.ch> =?iso-8859-1?q?=28G=E9rard?= Milmeister's message of "Mon, 16 Oct 2006 23:53:38 +0200") References: <1161035618.10154.6.camel@scriabin.tannenrauch.ch> Message-ID: >>>>> "GM" == G?rard Milmeister writes: GM> I started to file bugzilla entries for unowned directories based GM> on my local install. I then wrote a small program that lists all GM> unowned directories from the FC-5 repositories "core" and GM> "extras": Last week I had posted here about having done basically the same thing. The big problem that I see is that you're working from FC5, while my stuff works from repodata and thus can handle rawhide without actually having it installed. Some of the problems have already been fixed. /dev, for instance, is properly owned in FC6. I've placed the unowned dir portion of my report generated from recently-mirrored repodata at http://www.math.uh.edu/~tibbs/unowned-dirs Warning: it's 1.5MB. - J< From gemi at bluewin.ch Mon Oct 16 22:45:30 2006 From: gemi at bluewin.ch (=?ISO-8859-1?Q?G=E9rard?= Milmeister) Date: Tue, 17 Oct 2006 00:45:30 +0200 Subject: List of unowned directories In-Reply-To: References: <1161035618.10154.6.camel@scriabin.tannenrauch.ch> Message-ID: <1161038730.10154.10.camel@scriabin.tannenrauch.ch> On Mon, 2006-10-16 at 17:34 -0500, Jason L Tibbitts III wrote: > >>>>> "GM" == G?rard Milmeister writes: > > GM> I started to file bugzilla entries for unowned directories based > GM> on my local install. I then wrote a small program that lists all > GM> unowned directories from the FC-5 repositories "core" and > GM> "extras": > > Last week I had posted here about having done basically the same > thing. The big problem that I see is that you're working from FC5, > while my stuff works from repodata and thus can handle rawhide without > actually having it installed. > > Some of the problems have already been fixed. /dev, for instance, is > properly owned in FC6. > > I've placed the unowned dir portion of my report generated from > recently-mirrored repodata at > http://www.math.uh.edu/~tibbs/unowned-dirs > Warning: it's 1.5MB. Oh, I completely missed that thread... sorry. What about putting this on fedoraproject.org? -- G?rard Milmeister Langackerstrasse 49 CH-8057 Z?rich From tibbs at math.uh.edu Mon Oct 16 23:35:42 2006 From: tibbs at math.uh.edu (Jason L Tibbitts III) Date: Mon, 16 Oct 2006 18:35:42 -0500 Subject: List of unowned directories In-Reply-To: <1161038730.10154.10.camel@scriabin.tannenrauch.ch> =?iso-8859-1?q?=28G=E9rard?= Milmeister's message of "Tue, 17 Oct 2006 00:45:30 +0200") References: <1161035618.10154.6.camel@scriabin.tannenrauch.ch> <1161038730.10154.10.camel@scriabin.tannenrauch.ch> Message-ID: >>>>> "GM" == G?rard Milmeister writes: GM> What about putting this on fedoraproject.org? I went ahead and checked it into the status-report-scripts module; hopefully Christian doesn't mind. The thing lacks documentation; what I did to generate that report was to grab filelists.xml.gz from Core and Extras (renaming the extras file to filelists-extras.xml.gz), decompressing them, and running: ./dircheck -v --unowned --check filelists.xml:core --check filelists-extras.xml:extras I'll hopefully add automatic decompression, the ability to check RPMs as well as repodata, and the ability to load in repodata without complaining about it (so that you can check a single package without having to deal with all of the built-in errors). Note also that unowned directories aren't always simple to deal with. If they're occupied by files from just one package then it's trivial, but if multiple packages put things there (like /etc/pcmcia) then you have to look at dependencies or perhaps punt and put the thing in the filesystem package. - J< From wart at kobold.org Tue Oct 17 01:00:02 2006 From: wart at kobold.org (Wart) Date: Mon, 16 Oct 2006 18:00:02 -0700 Subject: List of unowned directories In-Reply-To: References: <1161035618.10154.6.camel@scriabin.tannenrauch.ch> Message-ID: <45342B12.8050000@kobold.org> Jason L Tibbitts III wrote: >>>>>> "GM" == G?rard Milmeister writes: > > GM> I started to file bugzilla entries for unowned directories based > GM> on my local install. I then wrote a small program that lists all > GM> unowned directories from the FC-5 repositories "core" and > GM> "extras": > > Last week I had posted here about having done basically the same > thing. The big problem that I see is that you're working from FC5, > while my stuff works from repodata and thus can handle rawhide without > actually having it installed. > > Some of the problems have already been fixed. /dev, for instance, is > properly owned in FC6. > > I've placed the unowned dir portion of my report generated from > recently-mirrored repodata at > http://www.math.uh.edu/~tibbs/unowned-dirs > Warning: it's 1.5MB. I don't understand the problem with yadex: /etc/yadex/1.7.0 is unowned, occupied by: /etc/yadex/1.7.0/yadex.cfg, in package yadex (extras) In the %files section of yadex.spec I have: %dir %{_sysconfdir}/%{name} %config(noreplace) %{_sysconfdir}/%{name}/%{version}/%{name}.cfg I thought this would cause all subdirs of /etc/yadex to also be owned by the yadex package, but alas, that does not seem to be the case. Does every recursive subdirectory of /etc/yadex need a %dir entry in this case? --Wart From garrick at usc.edu Tue Oct 17 05:11:07 2006 From: garrick at usc.edu (Garrick Staples) Date: Mon, 16 Oct 2006 22:11:07 -0700 Subject: List of unowned directories In-Reply-To: <45342B12.8050000@kobold.org> References: <1161035618.10154.6.camel@scriabin.tannenrauch.ch> <45342B12.8050000@kobold.org> Message-ID: <20061017051107.GH2077@polop.usc.edu> On Mon, Oct 16, 2006 at 06:00:02PM -0700, Wart alleged: > Jason L Tibbitts III wrote: > >>>>>>"GM" == G?rard Milmeister writes: > > > >GM> I started to file bugzilla entries for unowned directories based > >GM> on my local install. I then wrote a small program that lists all > >GM> unowned directories from the FC-5 repositories "core" and > >GM> "extras": > > > >Last week I had posted here about having done basically the same > >thing. The big problem that I see is that you're working from FC5, > >while my stuff works from repodata and thus can handle rawhide without > >actually having it installed. > > > >Some of the problems have already been fixed. /dev, for instance, is > >properly owned in FC6. > > > >I've placed the unowned dir portion of my report generated from > >recently-mirrored repodata at > >http://www.math.uh.edu/~tibbs/unowned-dirs > >Warning: it's 1.5MB. > > I don't understand the problem with yadex: > > /etc/yadex/1.7.0 is unowned, occupied by: > /etc/yadex/1.7.0/yadex.cfg, in package yadex (extras) > > In the %files section of yadex.spec I have: > > %dir %{_sysconfdir}/%{name} > %config(noreplace) %{_sysconfdir}/%{name}/%{version}/%{name}.cfg > > I thought this would cause all subdirs of /etc/yadex to also be owned by > the yadex package, but alas, that does not seem to be the case. Does > every recursive subdirectory of /etc/yadex need a %dir entry in this case? Other way around. The default is to recursively own the contents of a directory. %dir is used to only own the directory. -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 189 bytes Desc: not available URL: From chris.stone at gmail.com Tue Oct 17 06:40:56 2006 From: chris.stone at gmail.com (Christopher Stone) Date: Mon, 16 Oct 2006 23:40:56 -0700 Subject: Fedora Core 6 release date slip In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Did we slip again? From Christian.Iseli at licr.org Tue Oct 17 07:03:54 2006 From: Christian.Iseli at licr.org (Christian Iseli) Date: Tue, 17 Oct 2006 09:03:54 +0200 Subject: List of unowned directories In-Reply-To: References: <1161035618.10154.6.camel@scriabin.tannenrauch.ch> <1161038730.10154.10.camel@scriabin.tannenrauch.ch> Message-ID: <20061017090354.2bf2bfbb@ludwig-alpha> On Mon, 16 Oct 2006 18:35:42 -0500, Jason L Tibbitts III wrote: > I went ahead and checked it into the status-report-scripts module; > hopefully Christian doesn't mind. I don't mind at all :-) Looking at your list, it seems it'd be pretty easy to automate filing BZ tickets for the affected packages... C From tibbs at math.uh.edu Tue Oct 17 16:14:13 2006 From: tibbs at math.uh.edu (Jason L Tibbitts III) Date: Tue, 17 Oct 2006 11:14:13 -0500 Subject: List of unowned directories In-Reply-To: <20061017090354.2bf2bfbb@ludwig-alpha> (Christian Iseli's message of "Tue, 17 Oct 2006 09:03:54 +0200") References: <1161035618.10154.6.camel@scriabin.tannenrauch.ch> <1161038730.10154.10.camel@scriabin.tannenrauch.ch> <20061017090354.2bf2bfbb@ludwig-alpha> Message-ID: >>>>> "CI" == Christian Iseli writes: CI> Looking at your list, it seems it'd be pretty easy to automate CI> filing BZ tickets for the affected packages... I thought about it, but it's not always clear which package is supposed to own something. I guess it's pretty obvious for the cases where files from a single package occupy an unowned directory. I suppose could flag those cases separately. - J< From ville.skytta at iki.fi Tue Oct 17 18:30:13 2006 From: ville.skytta at iki.fi (Ville =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Skytt=E4?=) Date: Tue, 17 Oct 2006 21:30:13 +0300 Subject: List of unowned directories In-Reply-To: References: <1161035618.10154.6.camel@scriabin.tannenrauch.ch> <1161038730.10154.10.camel@scriabin.tannenrauch.ch> <20061017090354.2bf2bfbb@ludwig-alpha> Message-ID: <1161109814.3203.15.camel@viper.local> On Tue, 2006-10-17 at 11:14 -0500, Jason L Tibbitts III wrote: > >>>>> "CI" == Christian Iseli writes: > > CI> Looking at your list, it seems it'd be pretty easy to automate > CI> filing BZ tickets for the affected packages... > > I thought about it, but it's not always clear which package is > supposed to own something. Nevertheless, a general purpose utility for sanely (ie. at least no dupes on repetitive runs for the same issue) and automatically filing bugs would be useful... From pertusus at free.fr Tue Oct 17 18:44:34 2006 From: pertusus at free.fr (Patrice Dumas) Date: Tue, 17 Oct 2006 20:44:34 +0200 Subject: Co-maintainers to assist upstreams with their packages in Extras In-Reply-To: References: <20061015084621.GC2323@free.fr> <20061015190030.GD8727@neu.nirvana> <20061016063518.GA2339@free.fr> Message-ID: <20061017184434.GA2478@free.fr> On Mon, Oct 16, 2006 at 03:16:51PM -0500, Jason L Tibbitts III wrote: > > Only by agreement, though. There is no infrastructure in place to > enforce anything like this. Agreed. It is just what is commonly done. > ----- > PD> After some thinking and looking at some packages, I came to the > PD> conclusion that having upstream as primary maintainer in fedora > PD> should be avoided if possible. > ----- > > I object to this as a general rule. Not only is there no way to > enforce this except by agreement, but it is simply not possible to > reasonably make that generalization and I also find it to take a > rather dim view of the potentially enormous contributions which could > be made by upstream developers if we could only get them interested. Ok, my statement was a bit too much. To state it in a more sensible manner, the extras community should really make sure that the upstream maintainers maintaining their package in fedora extras do it in a manner suitable for fedora and not with upstream objectives. -- Pat From dwmw2 at infradead.org Tue Oct 17 22:39:57 2006 From: dwmw2 at infradead.org (David Woodhouse) Date: Tue, 17 Oct 2006 23:39:57 +0100 Subject: Agressive FUD by Fedora contributor (was: [Bug 210775]) In-Reply-To: <200610161136.41419.meme@daughtersoftiresias.org> References: <200610151852.k9FIqxUN018347@bugzilla.redhat.com> <1160996495.18463.21.camel@vader.jdub.homelinux.org> <200610161136.41419.meme@daughtersoftiresias.org> Message-ID: <1161124797.3376.239.camel@pmac.infradead.org> On Mon, 2006-10-16 at 11:36 -0500, Karen Pease wrote: > Re: Forked packages: To be honest, I can understand the concept of forked > packages, esp. back before Fedora made it easier to get changes into packages > into the RH line. What immediately comes to mind is build options: to reduce > dependencies, people tend to configure packages with the minimum number of > deps to meet their functionality requirements. If a repo needs more > functionality that requires additional deps, they either have to get the > original distro to carry those deps (sometimes a hard sell, or even > impossible if the licensing doesn't work out), or fork. There are other options. You can make it possible to build the extra functionality into a separate subpackage so that not everyone needs it. Or even make it possible to build it from a separate source package entirely, so that it can exist only in the Free World and not in Fedora if that's really necessary. Those options require work though, so aren't often pursued by mere package-monkeys; you need proper _maintainers_ for that. -- dwmw2 From dwmw2 at infradead.org Tue Oct 17 22:42:20 2006 From: dwmw2 at infradead.org (David Woodhouse) Date: Tue, 17 Oct 2006 23:42:20 +0100 Subject: List of unowned directories In-Reply-To: <1161035618.10154.6.camel@scriabin.tannenrauch.ch> References: <1161035618.10154.6.camel@scriabin.tannenrauch.ch> Message-ID: <1161124940.3376.242.camel@pmac.infradead.org> On Mon, 2006-10-16 at 23:53 +0200, G?rard Milmeister wrote: > I then wrote a small program that lists all unowned directories from > the > FC-5 repositories "core" and "extras": > http://math.ifi.unizh.ch/fedora/dirs.unowned > The list is sorted, but does not include the packages the directories > belong too. I suggest that all maintainers of packages in core and > extras take a look at it. It doesn't take that long to scan. Thanks. Could I ask you to add package owner information to it? It's easier to search for 'dwmw2' than to try to remember which packages I own :) -- dwmw2 From chris.stone at gmail.com Wed Oct 18 03:17:41 2006 From: chris.stone at gmail.com (Christopher Stone) Date: Tue, 17 Oct 2006 20:17:41 -0700 Subject: Agressive FUD by Fedora contributor (was: [Bug 210775]) In-Reply-To: <1160996495.18463.21.camel@vader.jdub.homelinux.org> References: <200610151852.k9FIqxUN018347@bugzilla.redhat.com> <200610151759.k9FHxe5W016619@bugzilla.redhat.com> <20061015222455.GF8727@neu.nirvana> <1160954137.14932.37.camel@localhost.localdomain> <20061015231933.GC20785@devserv.devel.redhat.com> <1160954771.30731.14.camel@cutter> <1160996495.18463.21.camel@vader.jdub.homelinux.org> Message-ID: On 10/16/06, Josh Boyer wrote: > On Sun, 2006-10-15 at 23:51 -0700, Christopher Stone wrote: > > > > I think that a repository that overrides base packages is far more > > damaging than any comments an individual can make on bugzilla or the > > mailing list. It is essentially forking Fedora and causes a lot of > > problems for the Fedora community. Such repositories are essentially > > creating their own distribution and should not be acceptable. It > > would be better for everyone, in my opinion, if these repositories > > created their own distribution instead. > > > > Therefore, I propose that the 'protectbase' plugin, be actually > > integrated into yum proper, and instead make a plugin which allows > > repositories to override core packages. That is, the default should > > be that no repository is allowed to override base packages unless you > > specifically install a plugin to allow them to do so. > > > > Comments? > > File an RFE in bugzilla. I have filed an RFE: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=211250 It was also suggested to me that the 'priorties' plugin would be "better" for this purpose, see my note about this in the RFE report. From pertusus at free.fr Wed Oct 18 06:53:59 2006 From: pertusus at free.fr (Patrice Dumas) Date: Wed, 18 Oct 2006 08:53:59 +0200 Subject: Co-maintainers to assist upstreams with their packages in Extras In-Reply-To: <4535990F.4070100@cs.nmsu.edu> References: <20061015084621.GC2323@free.fr> <20061015190030.GD8727@neu.nirvana> <20061016063518.GA2339@free.fr> <20061017184434.GA2478@free.fr> <4535990F.4070100@cs.nmsu.edu> Message-ID: <20061018065359.GA2321@free.fr> On Tue, Oct 17, 2006 at 09:01:35PM -0600, Rick L Vinyard Jr wrote: > > > Call me naive, but I still don't see why you're assuming that upstream > maintainers have objectives that are, in general, at odds with the > Fedora project. Not in general, but it does happen. -- Pat From chris.stone at gmail.com Wed Oct 18 15:51:35 2006 From: chris.stone at gmail.com (Christopher Stone) Date: Wed, 18 Oct 2006 08:51:35 -0700 Subject: Agressive FUD by Fedora contributor (was: [Bug 210775]) In-Reply-To: References: <200610151852.k9FIqxUN018347@bugzilla.redhat.com> <200610151759.k9FHxe5W016619@bugzilla.redhat.com> <20061015222455.GF8727@neu.nirvana> <1160954137.14932.37.camel@localhost.localdomain> <20061015231933.GC20785@devserv.devel.redhat.com> <1160954771.30731.14.camel@cutter> <1160996495.18463.21.camel@vader.jdub.homelinux.org> Message-ID: On 10/17/06, Christopher Stone wrote: > On 10/16/06, Josh Boyer wrote: > > File an RFE in bugzilla. > > I have filed an RFE: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=211250 Wow, this bug has already been closed in less than 24 hours as "WONTFIX" from someone who apparently does not want to even hear any discussion on this. What is the point of filing an RFE if one person who misunderstands or disagrees with the RFE immediately closes the bug in less than one day before hearing opinions on the topic? From rdieter at math.unl.edu Wed Oct 18 15:57:53 2006 From: rdieter at math.unl.edu (Rex Dieter) Date: Wed, 18 Oct 2006 10:57:53 -0500 Subject: yum RFE In-Reply-To: References: <200610151852.k9FIqxUN018347@bugzilla.redhat.com> <200610151759.k9FHxe5W016619@bugzilla.redhat.com> <20061015222455.GF8727@neu.nirvana> <1160954137.14932.37.camel@localhost.localdomain> <20061015231933.GC20785@devserv.devel.redhat.com> <1160954771.30731.14.camel@cutter> <1160996495.18463.21.camel@vader.jdub.homelinux.org> Message-ID: <45364F01.5040507@math.unl.edu> Christopher Stone wrote: > On 10/17/06, Christopher Stone wrote: >> On 10/16/06, Josh Boyer wrote: >> > File an RFE in bugzilla. >> >> I have filed an RFE: >> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=211250 > > Wow, this bug has already been closed in less than 24 hours as > "WONTFIX" from someone who apparently does not want to even hear any > discussion on this. > > What is the point of filing an RFE if one person who misunderstands or > disagrees with the RFE immediately closes the bug in less than one day > before hearing opinions on the topic? If that "one" person is the maintainer (and/or upstream developer) of the package in question, and they happen to disagree with you? I'm shocked! Shocked, I tell you. -- Rex From jkeating at redhat.com Wed Oct 18 16:02:07 2006 From: jkeating at redhat.com (Jesse Keating) Date: Wed, 18 Oct 2006 12:02:07 -0400 Subject: Agressive FUD by Fedora contributor (was: [Bug 210775]) In-Reply-To: References: <200610151852.k9FIqxUN018347@bugzilla.redhat.com> Message-ID: <200610181202.07509.jkeating@redhat.com> On Wednesday 18 October 2006 11:51, Christopher Stone wrote: > Wow, this bug has already been closed in less than 24 hours as > "WONTFIX" from someone who apparently does not want to even hear any > discussion on this. > > What is the point of filing an RFE if one person who misunderstands or > disagrees with the RFE immediately closes the bug in less than one day > before hearing opinions on the topic? This has been discussed to death in the past. Just because you weren't there doesn't mean it should be discussed again. The upstream author of yum says no. Theoretically you could convince the Fedora maintainer of yum to include and enable the plugin in the Fedora package builds of yum (like we do with fastest mirror and such), but that may be a tough discussion, and may end up just like this bug, given how many times its been discussed in the past before. A user added a repo by whatever means (installed an rpm, copied a file, hand wrote it out). They have a reasonable expectation that the repo they enabled will work just like any other repo they have. To make that the case is just silly. -- Jesse Keating Release Engineer: Fedora -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 189 bytes Desc: not available URL: From jwboyer at jdub.homelinux.org Wed Oct 18 16:14:30 2006 From: jwboyer at jdub.homelinux.org (Josh Boyer) Date: Wed, 18 Oct 2006 11:14:30 -0500 Subject: Agressive FUD by Fedora contributor (was: [Bug 210775]) In-Reply-To: References: <200610151852.k9FIqxUN018347@bugzilla.redhat.com> <200610151759.k9FHxe5W016619@bugzilla.redhat.com> <20061015222455.GF8727@neu.nirvana> <1160954137.14932.37.camel@localhost.localdomain> <20061015231933.GC20785@devserv.devel.redhat.com> <1160954771.30731.14.camel@cutter> <1160996495.18463.21.camel@vader.jdub.homelinux.org> Message-ID: <1161188072.2975.11.camel@zod.rchland.ibm.com> On Wed, 2006-10-18 at 08:51 -0700, Christopher Stone wrote: > On 10/17/06, Christopher Stone wrote: > > On 10/16/06, Josh Boyer wrote: > > > File an RFE in bugzilla. > > > > I have filed an RFE: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=211250 > > Wow, this bug has already been closed in less than 24 hours as > "WONTFIX" from someone who apparently does not want to even hear any > discussion on this. Seth is the upstream yum maintainer. You were essentially asking upstream yum to change. He has that authority. > What is the point of filing an RFE if one person who misunderstands or > disagrees with the RFE immediately closes the bug in less than one day > before hearing opinions on the topic? The point would be tracking purposes. By the way, you filed a bug in Fedora bugzilla asking for upstream to make a plugin that Fedora doesn't even ship to be "hardcoded" into yum itself. That particular request would have been better filed with the upstream yum developers. And it would have been denied just as quickly. Personally, I would have started by asking for the Fedora yum package to include the plugin and have it disabled by default. To me, that is much more reasonable. josh From denis at poolshark.org Wed Oct 18 16:10:00 2006 From: denis at poolshark.org (Denis Leroy) Date: Wed, 18 Oct 2006 18:10:00 +0200 Subject: Agressive FUD by Fedora contributor In-Reply-To: References: <200610151852.k9FIqxUN018347@bugzilla.redhat.com> <200610151759.k9FHxe5W016619@bugzilla.redhat.com> <20061015222455.GF8727@neu.nirvana> <1160954137.14932.37.camel@localhost.localdomain> <20061015231933.GC20785@devserv.devel.redhat.com> <1160954771.30731.14.camel@cutter> <1160996495.18463.21.camel@vader.jdub.homelinux.org> Message-ID: <453651D8.3020302@poolshark.org> Christopher Stone wrote: > On 10/17/06, Christopher Stone wrote: >> On 10/16/06, Josh Boyer wrote: >> > File an RFE in bugzilla. >> >> I have filed an RFE: >> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=211250 > > Wow, this bug has already been closed in less than 24 hours as > "WONTFIX" from someone who apparently does not want to even hear any > discussion on this. You got away with it. The penalty for filing bugs against yum is usually much steeper. I hear they come after you and steal your babies sometimes :-) From chris.stone at gmail.com Wed Oct 18 16:14:18 2006 From: chris.stone at gmail.com (Christopher Stone) Date: Wed, 18 Oct 2006 09:14:18 -0700 Subject: yum RFE In-Reply-To: <45364F01.5040507@math.unl.edu> References: <200610151852.k9FIqxUN018347@bugzilla.redhat.com> <20061015222455.GF8727@neu.nirvana> <1160954137.14932.37.camel@localhost.localdomain> <20061015231933.GC20785@devserv.devel.redhat.com> <1160954771.30731.14.camel@cutter> <1160996495.18463.21.camel@vader.jdub.homelinux.org> <45364F01.5040507@math.unl.edu> Message-ID: On 10/18/06, Rex Dieter wrote: > Christopher Stone wrote: > > On 10/17/06, Christopher Stone wrote: > >> On 10/16/06, Josh Boyer wrote: > >> > File an RFE in bugzilla. > >> > >> I have filed an RFE: > >> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=211250 > > > > Wow, this bug has already been closed in less than 24 hours as > > "WONTFIX" from someone who apparently does not want to even hear any > > discussion on this. > > > > What is the point of filing an RFE if one person who misunderstands or > > disagrees with the RFE immediately closes the bug in less than one day > > before hearing opinions on the topic? > > If that "one" person is the maintainer (and/or upstream developer) of > the package in question, and they happen to disagree with you? I'm > shocked! Shocked, I tell you. The reason it was closed was because Seth totally misunderstood what the RFE was trying to accomplish. Set thought that we were trying to make it impossible or extremely difficult for 3rd parth repos. to override base packages when the opposite is true. We want to make it easy for them to do this, but we want the user to have to take an extra step in order to enable them to do this. And this extra step should warn the user about the consequences of enabling this. We are *trying* to protect unknowning and unsuspecting users here. From jkeating at redhat.com Wed Oct 18 16:20:59 2006 From: jkeating at redhat.com (Jesse Keating) Date: Wed, 18 Oct 2006 12:20:59 -0400 Subject: yum RFE In-Reply-To: References: <200610151852.k9FIqxUN018347@bugzilla.redhat.com> <45364F01.5040507@math.unl.edu> Message-ID: <200610181221.02823.jkeating@redhat.com> On Wednesday 18 October 2006 12:14, Christopher Stone wrote: > The reason it was closed was because Seth totally misunderstood what > the RFE was trying to accomplish. ?Set thought that we were trying to > make it impossible or extremely difficult for 3rd parth repos. to > override base packages when the opposite is true. ?We want to make it > easy for them to do this, but we want the user to have to take an > extra step in order to enable them to do this. ?And this extra step > should warn the user about the consequences of enabling this. > > We are *trying* to protect unknowning and unsuspecting users here. Unknowing and unsuspecting users will become frightening and confused when the repo they added doesn't work like the rest of the repos they have. -- Jesse Keating Release Engineer: Fedora -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 189 bytes Desc: not available URL: From chris.stone at gmail.com Wed Oct 18 16:22:45 2006 From: chris.stone at gmail.com (Christopher Stone) Date: Wed, 18 Oct 2006 09:22:45 -0700 Subject: Agressive FUD by Fedora contributor (was: [Bug 210775]) In-Reply-To: <200610181202.07509.jkeating@redhat.com> References: <200610151852.k9FIqxUN018347@bugzilla.redhat.com> <200610181202.07509.jkeating@redhat.com> Message-ID: On 10/18/06, Jesse Keating wrote: > A user added a repo by whatever means (installed an rpm, copied a file, hand > wrote it out). They have a reasonable expectation that the repo they enabled > will work just like any other repo they have. To make that the case is just > silly. But the fact is that some repos do not behave like others. Some repos override base packages and fork Fedora into a new distribution. And unfortunately the majority of users who enable these repositories are totally unaware of the consquences until it is too late. All we are trying to do is to have some kind of warning mechanism in place to help protect unknowing or unsuspecting users. From chris.stone at gmail.com Wed Oct 18 16:29:31 2006 From: chris.stone at gmail.com (Christopher Stone) Date: Wed, 18 Oct 2006 09:29:31 -0700 Subject: yum RFE In-Reply-To: <200610181221.02823.jkeating@redhat.com> References: <200610151852.k9FIqxUN018347@bugzilla.redhat.com> <45364F01.5040507@math.unl.edu> <200610181221.02823.jkeating@redhat.com> Message-ID: On 10/18/06, Jesse Keating wrote: > On Wednesday 18 October 2006 12:14, Christopher Stone wrote: > > The reason it was closed was because Seth totally misunderstood what > > the RFE was trying to accomplish. Set thought that we were trying to > > make it impossible or extremely difficult for 3rd parth repos. to > > override base packages when the opposite is true. We want to make it > > easy for them to do this, but we want the user to have to take an > > extra step in order to enable them to do this. And this extra step > > should warn the user about the consequences of enabling this. > > > > We are *trying* to protect unknowning and unsuspecting users here. > > Unknowing and unsuspecting users will become frightening and confused when the > repo they added doesn't work like the rest of the repos they have. I think this is better than some poor user who is forced to remove all packages from a certain repository by hand after their system becomes messed up. There was a poor unfortunate user on #fedora just yesterday who ran into this problem and was forced to uninstall all 3rd party repo packages which due to dependencies resulted in uninstalling and reinstalling dozens of packages. This is *much* more freightening and confusing to unsuspecting users if you ask me. From dan at danny.cz Wed Oct 18 17:00:08 2006 From: dan at danny.cz (Dan =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Hor=E1k?=) Date: Wed, 18 Oct 2006 19:00:08 +0200 Subject: yum RFE In-Reply-To: References: <200610151852.k9FIqxUN018347@bugzilla.redhat.com> <45364F01.5040507@math.unl.edu> <200610181221.02823.jkeating@redhat.com> Message-ID: <1161190808.3510.25.camel@eagle.danny.cz> Christopher Stone p??e v St 18. 10. 2006 v 09:29 -0700: > On 10/18/06, Jesse Keating wrote: > > On Wednesday 18 October 2006 12:14, Christopher Stone wrote: > > > The reason it was closed was because Seth totally misunderstood what > > > the RFE was trying to accomplish. Set thought that we were trying to > > > make it impossible or extremely difficult for 3rd parth repos. to > > > override base packages when the opposite is true. We want to make it > > > easy for them to do this, but we want the user to have to take an > > > extra step in order to enable them to do this. And this extra step > > > should warn the user about the consequences of enabling this. > > > > > > We are *trying* to protect unknowning and unsuspecting users here. > > > > Unknowing and unsuspecting users will become frightening and confused when the > > repo they added doesn't work like the rest of the repos they have. > > I think this is better than some poor user who is forced to remove all > packages from a certain repository by hand after their system becomes > messed up. => so it could be possible to create a plugin or an extension for yum that will remove all installed packages for a given repo. Also not only the "here discussed repo" replaces packages from the core distro and they should replace only leaf packages. > There was a poor unfortunate user on #fedora just yesterday who ran > into this problem and was forced to uninstall all 3rd party repo > packages which due to dependencies resulted in uninstalling and > reinstalling dozens of packages. This is *much* more freightening and > confusing to unsuspecting users if you ask me. Users are usualy warned on the 3rd party repos web pages that mixing can cause troubles. Now I will be quiet again. Dan From alan at redhat.com Wed Oct 18 17:06:06 2006 From: alan at redhat.com (Alan Cox) Date: Wed, 18 Oct 2006 13:06:06 -0400 Subject: yum RFE In-Reply-To: <200610181221.02823.jkeating@redhat.com> References: <200610151852.k9FIqxUN018347@bugzilla.redhat.com> <45364F01.5040507@math.unl.edu> <200610181221.02823.jkeating@redhat.com> Message-ID: <20061018170606.GA24314@devserv.devel.redhat.com> On Wed, Oct 18, 2006 at 12:20:59PM -0400, Jesse Keating wrote: > Unknowing and unsuspecting users will become frightening and confused when the > repo they added doesn't work like the rest of the repos they have. You mean when it overwrites base packages and breaks stuff ? From gdk at redhat.com Wed Oct 18 17:15:51 2006 From: gdk at redhat.com (Greg DeKoenigsberg) Date: Wed, 18 Oct 2006 13:15:51 -0400 (EDT) Subject: yum RFE In-Reply-To: References: <200610151852.k9FIqxUN018347@bugzilla.redhat.com> <45364F01.5040507@math.unl.edu> <200610181221.02823.jkeating@redhat.com> Message-ID: I am reluctantly in Mr. Stone's camp here. Reluctantly, because the strident nature of the evolution of this thread has obscured what I find to be a real issue: the question of what is and isn't "blessed" in the universe of Fedora packages. There are *a lot* of people don't quite understand how packages work -- and they certainly don't understand the ramifications of using a repo that overwrites packages from Core. I don't think it's unreasonable to package this plugin. I don't even think it's unreasonable to enable it by default; I certainly think it's a potentially worthwhile discussion. Is it a sensible compromise to include this plug-in by default for now? --g ------------------------------------------------------------- Greg DeKoenigsberg || Fedora Project || fedoraproject.org Be an Ambassador || http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Ambassadors ------------------------------------------------------------- On Wed, 18 Oct 2006, Christopher Stone wrote: > On 10/18/06, Jesse Keating wrote: > > On Wednesday 18 October 2006 12:14, Christopher Stone wrote: > > > The reason it was closed was because Seth totally misunderstood what > > > the RFE was trying to accomplish. Set thought that we were trying to > > > make it impossible or extremely difficult for 3rd parth repos. to > > > override base packages when the opposite is true. We want to make it > > > easy for them to do this, but we want the user to have to take an > > > extra step in order to enable them to do this. And this extra step > > > should warn the user about the consequences of enabling this. > > > > > > We are *trying* to protect unknowning and unsuspecting users here. > > > > Unknowing and unsuspecting users will become frightening and confused when the > > repo they added doesn't work like the rest of the repos they have. > > I think this is better than some poor user who is forced to remove all > packages from a certain repository by hand after their system becomes > messed up. > > There was a poor unfortunate user on #fedora just yesterday who ran > into this problem and was forced to uninstall all 3rd party repo > packages which due to dependencies resulted in uninstalling and > reinstalling dozens of packages. This is *much* more freightening and > confusing to unsuspecting users if you ask me. > > -- > Fedora-maintainers mailing list > Fedora-maintainers at redhat.com > https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-maintainers > From jwboyer at jdub.homelinux.org Wed Oct 18 17:38:49 2006 From: jwboyer at jdub.homelinux.org (Josh Boyer) Date: Wed, 18 Oct 2006 12:38:49 -0500 Subject: yum RFE In-Reply-To: References: <200610151852.k9FIqxUN018347@bugzilla.redhat.com> <45364F01.5040507@math.unl.edu> <200610181221.02823.jkeating@redhat.com> Message-ID: <1161193129.2975.13.camel@zod.rchland.ibm.com> On Wed, 2006-10-18 at 13:15 -0400, Greg DeKoenigsberg wrote: > I am reluctantly in Mr. Stone's camp here. > > Reluctantly, because the strident nature of the evolution of this thread > has obscured what I find to be a real issue: the question of what is and > isn't "blessed" in the universe of Fedora packages. > > There are *a lot* of people don't quite understand how packages work -- > and they certainly don't understand the ramifications of using a repo that > overwrites packages from Core. > > I don't think it's unreasonable to package this plugin. I don't even > think it's unreasonable to enable it by default; I certainly think it's a > potentially worthwhile discussion. > > Is it a sensible compromise to include this plug-in by default for now? I think it's sensible to include the plugin in the Fedora package. Whether it should be enabled by default or not... dunno. josh From jkeating at redhat.com Wed Oct 18 17:41:02 2006 From: jkeating at redhat.com (Jesse Keating) Date: Wed, 18 Oct 2006 13:41:02 -0400 Subject: yum RFE In-Reply-To: <20061018170606.GA24314@devserv.devel.redhat.com> References: <200610151852.k9FIqxUN018347@bugzilla.redhat.com> <200610181221.02823.jkeating@redhat.com> <20061018170606.GA24314@devserv.devel.redhat.com> Message-ID: <200610181341.03027.jkeating@redhat.com> On Wednesday 18 October 2006 13:06, Alan Cox wrote: > You mean when it overwrites base packages and breaks stuff ? Then should setup road blocks to using rpm? To adding repos at all? To writing as root? The user had taken the step to add something which did NOT come with his/her installation. Adding a NON "supported" repo. From that point on, they're in the "on your own" land, and I'm perfectly happy with their system getting eaten alive. There is a REASON we don't include those repos. Setting up more (easily removable for those that know) roadblocks will do nothing more than confuse the user even more, and create more hostility toward the 3rd party packagers. -- Jesse Keating Release Engineer: Fedora -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 189 bytes Desc: not available URL: From jkeating at redhat.com Wed Oct 18 17:43:32 2006 From: jkeating at redhat.com (Jesse Keating) Date: Wed, 18 Oct 2006 13:43:32 -0400 Subject: Agressive FUD by Fedora contributor (was: [Bug 210775]) In-Reply-To: References: <200610151852.k9FIqxUN018347@bugzilla.redhat.com> <200610181202.07509.jkeating@redhat.com> Message-ID: <200610181343.33172.jkeating@redhat.com> On Wednesday 18 October 2006 12:22, Christopher Stone wrote: > On 10/18/06, Jesse Keating wrote: > > A user added a repo by whatever means (installed an rpm, copied a file, > > hand wrote it out). ?They have a reasonable expectation that the repo > > they enabled will work just like any other repo they have. ?To make that > > the case is just silly. > > But the fact is that some repos do not behave like others. ?Some repos > override base packages and fork Fedora into a new distribution. ?And > unfortunately the majority of users who enable these repositories are > totally unaware of the consquences until it is too late. ?All we are > trying to do is to have some kind of warning mechanism in place to > help protect unknowing or unsuspecting users. These are the same users that would install a package off a website because the website said too. Its usually how they get the repo in the first place. Should we provent them from installing any package that doesn't come through a yum repo? The package they get from the 3rd party repo could just as easily DISABLE the plugin so that the repo will work as the repo is designed, not as how we THINK it should work. -- Jesse Keating Release Engineer: Fedora -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 189 bytes Desc: not available URL: From gdk at redhat.com Wed Oct 18 18:16:22 2006 From: gdk at redhat.com (Greg DeKoenigsberg) Date: Wed, 18 Oct 2006 14:16:22 -0400 (EDT) Subject: yum RFE In-Reply-To: <200610181341.03027.jkeating@redhat.com> References: <200610151852.k9FIqxUN018347@bugzilla.redhat.com> <200610181221.02823.jkeating@redhat.com> <20061018170606.GA24314@devserv.devel.redhat.com> <200610181341.03027.jkeating@redhat.com> Message-ID: On Wed, 18 Oct 2006, Jesse Keating wrote: > On Wednesday 18 October 2006 13:06, Alan Cox wrote: > > You mean when it overwrites base packages and breaks stuff ? > > Then should setup road blocks to using rpm? To adding repos at all? To > writing as root? The user had taken the step to add something which did NOT > come with his/her installation. Adding a NON "supported" repo. From that > point on, they're in the "on your own" land, and I'm perfectly happy with > their system getting eaten alive. There is a REASON we don't include those > repos. Setting up more (easily removable for those that know) roadblocks > will do nothing more than confuse the user even more, and create more > hostility toward the 3rd party packagers. Jesse, I just don't think it's that simple. It's easy for us to state, as policy, that "if you wander off the path, Fedora will eat your babies." But *a lot* of people still take that risk when they don't understand the risks they're taking. At all. I'm certainly not in favor of adding lots of arbitrary complexity to prevent people from using 3rd party repos. But here's the thing: it's also *entirely* possible to use 3rd party repos that don't overwrite core. Over time, there may be many more of these. Why not enable the functionality that tells users, one last time: "The operation you're about to perform will replace a core package. This could make it more difficult to maintain your system. If you're *sure* you want to do this, edit foo and change bar to baz." I believe that could help users -- users that are currently struggling to understand the trade-offs between using straight Fedora and Fedora+3rd parties. But I don't believe it does anything to damage the reputations of 3rd party packagers. --g ------------------------------------------------------------- Greg DeKoenigsberg || Fedora Project || fedoraproject.org Be an Ambassador || http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Ambassadors ------------------------------------------------------------- From jkeating at redhat.com Wed Oct 18 18:38:13 2006 From: jkeating at redhat.com (Jesse Keating) Date: Wed, 18 Oct 2006 14:38:13 -0400 Subject: yum RFE In-Reply-To: References: <200610151852.k9FIqxUN018347@bugzilla.redhat.com> <200610181341.03027.jkeating@redhat.com> Message-ID: <200610181438.13428.jkeating@redhat.com> On Wednesday 18 October 2006 14:16, Greg DeKoenigsberg wrote: > "The operation you're about to perform will replace a core package. ?This > could make it more difficult to maintain your system. ?If you're *sure* > you want to do this, edit foo and change bar to baz." Interesting idea, but where does this go? Unless you make the update actions interactive during the install by the time you see this its too late. And I'm pretty sure we don't want to make the update processes interactive any more than 'here is a list, click next to go'. -- Jesse Keating Release Engineer: Fedora -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 189 bytes Desc: not available URL: From garrick at usc.edu Wed Oct 18 18:39:34 2006 From: garrick at usc.edu (Garrick Staples) Date: Wed, 18 Oct 2006 11:39:34 -0700 Subject: yum RFE In-Reply-To: References: <200610151852.k9FIqxUN018347@bugzilla.redhat.com> <200610181221.02823.jkeating@redhat.com> <20061018170606.GA24314@devserv.devel.redhat.com> <200610181341.03027.jkeating@redhat.com> Message-ID: <20061018183934.GS2077@polop.usc.edu> On Wed, Oct 18, 2006 at 02:16:22PM -0400, Greg DeKoenigsberg alleged: > > On Wed, 18 Oct 2006, Jesse Keating wrote: > > > On Wednesday 18 October 2006 13:06, Alan Cox wrote: > > > You mean when it overwrites base packages and breaks stuff ? > > > > Then should setup road blocks to using rpm? To adding repos at all? To > > writing as root? The user had taken the step to add something which did NOT > > come with his/her installation. Adding a NON "supported" repo. From that > > point on, they're in the "on your own" land, and I'm perfectly happy with > > their system getting eaten alive. There is a REASON we don't include those > > repos. Setting up more (easily removable for those that know) roadblocks > > will do nothing more than confuse the user even more, and create more > > hostility toward the 3rd party packagers. > > Jesse, I just don't think it's that simple. > > It's easy for us to state, as policy, that "if you wander off the path, > Fedora will eat your babies." > > But *a lot* of people still take that risk when they don't understand the > risks they're taking. At all. > > I'm certainly not in favor of adding lots of arbitrary complexity to > prevent people from using 3rd party repos. But here's the thing: it's > also *entirely* possible to use 3rd party repos that don't overwrite core. > Over time, there may be many more of these. Why not enable the > functionality that tells users, one last time: > > "The operation you're about to perform will replace a core package. This > could make it more difficult to maintain your system. If you're *sure* > you want to do this, edit foo and change bar to baz." > > I believe that could help users -- users that are currently struggling to > understand the trade-offs between using straight Fedora and Fedora+3rd > parties. But I don't believe it does anything to damage the reputations > of 3rd party packagers. Not that anyone listens to me, but I'd like to go on record to say that I think this general idea is terrific. Not only for the newbs, but also as a useful tool for the experts (so you don't have to go double checking each new thing). -- Garrick Staples, Linux/HPCC Administrator University of Southern California -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 189 bytes Desc: not available URL: From garrick at usc.edu Wed Oct 18 18:41:24 2006 From: garrick at usc.edu (Garrick Staples) Date: Wed, 18 Oct 2006 11:41:24 -0700 Subject: yum RFE In-Reply-To: <200610181438.13428.jkeating@redhat.com> References: <200610151852.k9FIqxUN018347@bugzilla.redhat.com> <200610181341.03027.jkeating@redhat.com> <200610181438.13428.jkeating@redhat.com> Message-ID: <20061018184124.GT2077@polop.usc.edu> On Wed, Oct 18, 2006 at 02:38:13PM -0400, Jesse Keating alleged: > On Wednesday 18 October 2006 14:16, Greg DeKoenigsberg wrote: > > "The operation you're about to perform will replace a core package. ?This > > could make it more difficult to maintain your system. ?If you're *sure* > > you want to do this, edit foo and change bar to baz." > > Interesting idea, but where does this go? Unless you make the update actions > interactive during the install by the time you see this its too late. And > I'm pretty sure we don't want to make the update processes interactive any > more than 'here is a list, click next to go'. Absolutely. Prompting the user to confirm a base overwrite would be before 'here is a list, click next to go'. -- Garrick Staples, Linux/HPCC Administrator University of Southern California -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 189 bytes Desc: not available URL: From chris.stone at gmail.com Wed Oct 18 18:41:21 2006 From: chris.stone at gmail.com (Christopher Stone) Date: Wed, 18 Oct 2006 11:41:21 -0700 Subject: yum RFE In-Reply-To: <200610181438.13428.jkeating@redhat.com> References: <200610151852.k9FIqxUN018347@bugzilla.redhat.com> <200610181341.03027.jkeating@redhat.com> <200610181438.13428.jkeating@redhat.com> Message-ID: On 10/18/06, Jesse Keating wrote: > On Wednesday 18 October 2006 14:16, Greg DeKoenigsberg wrote: > > "The operation you're about to perform will replace a core package. This > > could make it more difficult to maintain your system. If you're *sure* > > you want to do this, edit foo and change bar to baz." > > Interesting idea, but where does this go? Unless you make the update actions > interactive during the install by the time you see this its too late. And > I'm pretty sure we don't want to make the update processes interactive any > more than 'here is a list, click next to go'. Actually I believe the protectbase plugin does exactly this. All that needs to be done is to enable this plugin by default and issue a warning: "The operation you're about to perform will replace a core package. This could make it more difficult to maintain your system. If you're *sure* you want to do this, issue the command yum remove yum-protectbase" From meme at daughtersoftiresias.org Wed Oct 18 18:54:20 2006 From: meme at daughtersoftiresias.org (Karen Pease) Date: Wed, 18 Oct 2006 13:54:20 -0500 Subject: yum RFE In-Reply-To: References: <200610151852.k9FIqxUN018347@bugzilla.redhat.com> <200610181341.03027.jkeating@redhat.com> Message-ID: <200610181354.21176.meme@daughtersoftiresias.org> On Wednesday 18 October 2006 01:16 pm, Greg DeKoenigsberg wrote: > Jesse, I just don't think it's that simple. > > It's easy for us to state, as policy, that "if you wander off the path, > Fedora will eat your babies." > > But *a lot* of people still take that risk when they don't understand the > risks they're taking. At all. But the obvious issue is: why do people take that risk? It's simple: much of what people want doesn't come with Fedora. Example: Lets look in Amusements/Games. I have my system set up to have about a half dozen repos in addition to Fedora. Only perhaps a fifth of the games listed are from Fedora. Where's Monsterz? Where's Nazghul? Where's Crack-attack? Tong? Frozen-bubble? Pingus? Trackballs? Liquidwar? I can keep going. If Fedora had everything/almost everything that people wanted, this wouldn't be a problem. It doesn't. Licensing and other issues keep them out of the distro. Net result, people use other repos. Telling them not to use other repos is as counterproductive as the recent recommendation to "use the nv driver" when the closed-source NVidia driver had a root exploit discovered (nv has no GLX, making it turn your high-end video card into a piece of junk worthless for most of the reasons that people bought a high-end card and installed the closed-source driver to begin with). I agree that it would be nice if we could rank repos. Tier one is Core, tier two is Extras, and so on from there. I'd take the recommendation one step further and suggest that it not be a web page that lists repos, but a simple, packaged script (say, "system-config-repos") that brings up an interface, shows you the tiers (and what each one entails), and lets you choose which you want to enable. That would stop all of this hunt-and-peck stuff that your average user has to do to configure new repos and find out whether they're good or not. As I said before, I understand the motive behind replacing core packages. If core cannot (say, due to licensing) or will not add in functionality in a package that you *need* for your packages, and there's no other reasonable way to get it (say, with a plugin), you don't have any good options. But users need to be aware of what repos will do to their system when making the decision of what to add to their list, and the current "google for them" solution doesn't do that. - Karen From chris.stone at gmail.com Wed Oct 18 19:29:13 2006 From: chris.stone at gmail.com (Christopher Stone) Date: Wed, 18 Oct 2006 12:29:13 -0700 Subject: yum RFE In-Reply-To: <200610181354.21176.meme@daughtersoftiresias.org> References: <200610151852.k9FIqxUN018347@bugzilla.redhat.com> <200610181341.03027.jkeating@redhat.com> <200610181354.21176.meme@daughtersoftiresias.org> Message-ID: On 10/18/06, Karen Pease wrote: > Example: Lets look in Amusements/Games. I have my system set up to have about > a half dozen repos in addition to Fedora. Only perhaps a fifth of the games > listed are from Fedora. Where's Monsterz? Where's Nazghul? Where's > Crack-attack? Tong? Frozen-bubble? Pingus? Trackballs? Liquidwar? I can > keep going. nazghul, tong, pingus, and trackballs are in Extras. I think frozen-bubble was also moved to extras IIRC, but if not its in Livna. I'm not sure about the others, but the Games SIG would love for you to help us package any missing games. From jkeating at redhat.com Wed Oct 18 19:31:14 2006 From: jkeating at redhat.com (Jesse Keating) Date: Wed, 18 Oct 2006 15:31:14 -0400 Subject: yum RFE In-Reply-To: References: <200610151852.k9FIqxUN018347@bugzilla.redhat.com> <200610181438.13428.jkeating@redhat.com> Message-ID: <200610181531.15142.jkeating@redhat.com> On Wednesday 18 October 2006 14:41, Christopher Stone wrote: > Actually I believe the protectbase plugin does exactly this. ?All that > needs to be done is to enable this plugin by default and issue a > warning: > > "The operation you're about to perform will replace a core package. This > could make it more difficult to maintain your system. If you're *sure* > you want to do this, issue the command yum remove yum-protectbase" So protectbase will prevent the core package from being replaced. Now what happens with the package you REALLY want from 3rd party repo has a requires on a replaced core package version that is higher than what is in Core? Now you've got broken deps, and the user is going to complain to either us or to the 3rd party repo. Enough of these, and the 3rd party repo is going to craft some way to disable this automatically to avoid the bug reports of HIS repo being broken. He'll service HIS users. This is an arms race that I'd rather not see us get into. The VERY most I'd accept is a warning, either a popup or a logged message, that DOES NOT stop the transaction, or even slow it down. Just a warning. -- Jesse Keating Release Engineer: Fedora -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 189 bytes Desc: not available URL: From j.w.r.degoede at hhs.nl Wed Oct 18 19:56:22 2006 From: j.w.r.degoede at hhs.nl (Hans de Goede) Date: Wed, 18 Oct 2006 21:56:22 +0200 Subject: Fedora and Games (Was YUM RFE) In-Reply-To: <200610181354.21176.meme@daughtersoftiresias.org> References: <200610151852.k9FIqxUN018347@bugzilla.redhat.com> <200610181341.03027.jkeating@redhat.com> <200610181354.21176.meme@daughtersoftiresias.org> Message-ID: <453686E6.9090604@hhs.nl> Karen Pease wrote: > On Wednesday 18 October 2006 01:16 pm, Greg DeKoenigsberg wrote: >> Jesse, I just don't think it's that simple. >> >> It's easy for us to state, as policy, that "if you wander off the path, >> Fedora will eat your babies." >> >> But *a lot* of people still take that risk when they don't understand the >> risks they're taking. At all. > > But the obvious issue is: why do people take that risk? It's simple: much of > what people want doesn't come with Fedora. > > Example: Lets look in Amusements/Games. I have my system set up to have about > a half dozen repos in addition to Fedora. Only perhaps a fifth of the games > listed are from Fedora. Where's Monsterz? Where's Nazghul? Where's > Crack-attack? Tong? Frozen-bubble? Pingus? Trackballs? Liquidwar? I can > keep going. > As a very active Fedora Extras Games SIG member let me cut in here: First: Crack-attack, Frozen-bubble, Pingus and Trackballs are all in FE and all at there latest version (I maintain all 4 of them). Also a quick yum list delivers: monsterz.i386 0.7.0-7.fc6 extras-developme nazghul.i386 0.5.4-2.fc6 extras-developme tong.i386 1.0-7.fc6 extras-developme Second about the others if they meet the FE license demands, why haven't you filed an RFE, please add any OSS games you want here: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Extras/WishList and/or here: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Extras/SIGs/Games I even take the trouble to talk to upstream to get license conditions changed if nescesarry, we for example have tremulous in FE because I managed to find out that the troublesome shaderlab Textures where relicensed on Debian requests to a suitable license. Unfortunately this wasn't documented anywhere and Debian still has tremulous in non-free (but thats because they believe that any of the Creative Commons licenses is non-free, not only the non commercial ones). And tremulous is just one example, I have also managed to get worminator (try it) released under GPL and ported it to Linux (from win32), and so I could go on and on. If you like monsters try crystal-stacker, another game for which I managed to get the license ammended to make it OSS, and then ported to Linux. So in short if you want more games: 1) let us know which ones 2) come and join the Games SIG and package a few yourself 3) Ask upstream politely to amend their license, you will be surprised how often they will comply when asked politely and you properly explain things. Thanks & Regards, Hans From tibbs at math.uh.edu Wed Oct 18 19:49:15 2006 From: tibbs at math.uh.edu (Jason L Tibbitts III) Date: Wed, 18 Oct 2006 14:49:15 -0500 Subject: yum RFE In-Reply-To: <200610181354.21176.meme@daughtersoftiresias.org> (Karen Pease's message of "Wed, 18 Oct 2006 13:54:20 -0500") References: <200610151852.k9FIqxUN018347@bugzilla.redhat.com> <200610181341.03027.jkeating@redhat.com> <200610181354.21176.meme@daughtersoftiresias.org> Message-ID: >>>>> "KP" == Karen Pease writes: KP> Where's Nazghul? I sure hope it's in Extras where I packaged it. (Not to derail the discussion, but if some other repo is conflicting with the Nazghul package, in Extras, I haven't heard about it.) - J< From nicolas.mailhot at laposte.net Wed Oct 18 19:52:01 2006 From: nicolas.mailhot at laposte.net (Nicolas Mailhot) Date: Wed, 18 Oct 2006 21:52:01 +0200 Subject: yum RFE In-Reply-To: <200610181354.21176.meme@daughtersoftiresias.org> References: <200610151852.k9FIqxUN018347@bugzilla.redhat.com> <200610181341.03027.jkeating@redhat.com> <200610181354.21176.meme@daughtersoftiresias.org> Message-ID: <1161201121.3755.1.camel@rousalka.dyndns.org> Le mercredi 18 octobre 2006 ? 13:54 -0500, Karen Pease a ?crit : > On Wednesday 18 October 2006 01:16 pm, Greg DeKoenigsberg wrote: > But the obvious issue is: why do people take that risk? It's simple: much of > what people want doesn't come with Fedora. I strongly suspect mythtv alone explains a *large* number of atrpm users. -- Nicolas Mailhot From meme at daughtersoftiresias.org Wed Oct 18 19:53:43 2006 From: meme at daughtersoftiresias.org (Karen Pease) Date: Wed, 18 Oct 2006 14:53:43 -0500 Subject: yum RFE In-Reply-To: References: <200610151852.k9FIqxUN018347@bugzilla.redhat.com> <200610181354.21176.meme@daughtersoftiresias.org> Message-ID: <200610181453.44264.meme@daughtersoftiresias.org> Hmm, this page must not reflect what's present, then: http://fedoraproject.org/extras/6/i386/repodata/repoview/games.group.html I just looked at that page, and listed games that I knew had been installed on my system with yum that weren't on the list. ;) I might have picked bad examples, but the point remains. Nvidia drivers. Mp3 plugins. Mythtv. Most of the fortunes packages. Etc. There are many things that simply aren't (and sometimes can't be) in Fedora; that's why people add extra repos. They want or need things, and they can't get them with a default system. - Karen On Wednesday 18 October 2006 02:29 pm, Christopher Stone wrote: > On 10/18/06, Karen Pease wrote: > > Example: Lets look in Amusements/Games. I have my system set up to have > > about a half dozen repos in addition to Fedora. Only perhaps a fifth of > > the games listed are from Fedora. Where's Monsterz? Where's Nazghul? > > Where's Crack-attack? Tong? Frozen-bubble? Pingus? Trackballs? > > Liquidwar? I can keep going. > > nazghul, tong, pingus, and trackballs are in Extras. I think > frozen-bubble was also moved to extras IIRC, but if not its in Livna. > I'm not sure about the others, but the Games SIG would love for you to > help us package any missing games. > > -- > Fedora-maintainers mailing list > Fedora-maintainers at redhat.com > https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-maintainers From jkeating at redhat.com Wed Oct 18 20:18:13 2006 From: jkeating at redhat.com (Jesse Keating) Date: Wed, 18 Oct 2006 16:18:13 -0400 Subject: yum RFE In-Reply-To: <200610181453.44264.meme@daughtersoftiresias.org> References: <200610151852.k9FIqxUN018347@bugzilla.redhat.com> <200610181453.44264.meme@daughtersoftiresias.org> Message-ID: <200610181618.13845.jkeating@redhat.com> On Wednesday 18 October 2006 15:53, Karen Pease wrote: > Hmm, this page must not reflect what's present, then: > > http://fedoraproject.org/extras/6/i386/repodata/repoview/games.group.html > > I just looked at that page, and listed games that I knew had been installed > on my system with yum that weren't on the list. ?;) ?I Repoview uses the rpm 'Group' tag which doesn't reflect what may actually be in comps, which is what feeds the group views of yum (and thus anaconda, pirut, etc...). If somebody wants to make repoview use a comps file to sort groups, by all means... (: -- Jesse Keating Release Engineer: Fedora -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 189 bytes Desc: not available URL: From gemi at bluewin.ch Wed Oct 18 20:55:46 2006 From: gemi at bluewin.ch (=?ISO-8859-1?Q?G=E9rard?= Milmeister) Date: Wed, 18 Oct 2006 22:55:46 +0200 Subject: List of unowned directories In-Reply-To: <1161124940.3376.242.camel@pmac.infradead.org> References: <1161035618.10154.6.camel@scriabin.tannenrauch.ch> <1161124940.3376.242.camel@pmac.infradead.org> Message-ID: <1161204946.18925.1.camel@scriabin.tannenrauch.ch> On Tue, 2006-10-17 at 23:42 +0100, David Woodhouse wrote: > On Mon, 2006-10-16 at 23:53 +0200, G?rard Milmeister wrote: > > I then wrote a small program that lists all unowned directories from > > the > > FC-5 repositories "core" and "extras": > > http://math.ifi.unizh.ch/fedora/dirs.unowned > > The list is sorted, but does not include the packages the directories > > belong too. I suggest that all maintainers of packages in core and > > extras take a look at it. It doesn't take that long to scan. > > Thanks. Could I ask you to add package owner information to it? Unfortunately the list was generated using a 10-min hack :-) Probably the list created by Jason mentioned earlier in this threated is more useful to you. -- G?rard Milmeister Langackerstrasse 49 CH-8057 Z?rich From tibbs at math.uh.edu Wed Oct 18 21:08:22 2006 From: tibbs at math.uh.edu (Jason L Tibbitts III) Date: Wed, 18 Oct 2006 16:08:22 -0500 Subject: List of unowned directories In-Reply-To: <1161204946.18925.1.camel@scriabin.tannenrauch.ch> =?iso-8859-1?q?=28G=E9rard?= Milmeister's message of "Wed, 18 Oct 2006 22:55:46 +0200") References: <1161035618.10154.6.camel@scriabin.tannenrauch.ch> <1161124940.3376.242.camel@pmac.infradead.org> <1161204946.18925.1.camel@scriabin.tannenrauch.ch> Message-ID: >>>>> "GM" == G?rard Milmeister writes: GM> Probably the list created by Jason mentioned earlier in this GM> threated is more useful to you. Yes, let me see if I can hack in owners.list parsing. - J< From a.badger at gmail.com Wed Oct 18 21:52:32 2006 From: a.badger at gmail.com (Toshio Kuratomi) Date: Wed, 18 Oct 2006 14:52:32 -0700 Subject: yum RFE In-Reply-To: <1161193129.2975.13.camel@zod.rchland.ibm.com> References: <200610151852.k9FIqxUN018347@bugzilla.redhat.com> <45364F01.5040507@math.unl.edu> <200610181221.02823.jkeating@redhat.com> <1161193129.2975.13.camel@zod.rchland.ibm.com> Message-ID: <1161208352.2913.82.camel@localhost> On Wed, 2006-10-18 at 12:38 -0500, Josh Boyer wrote: > On Wed, 2006-10-18 at 13:15 -0400, Greg DeKoenigsberg wrote: > > I am reluctantly in Mr. Stone's camp here. > > > > Reluctantly, because the strident nature of the evolution of this thread > > has obscured what I find to be a real issue: the question of what is and > > isn't "blessed" in the universe of Fedora packages. > > > > There are *a lot* of people don't quite understand how packages work -- > > and they certainly don't understand the ramifications of using a repo that > > overwrites packages from Core. > > > > I don't think it's unreasonable to package this plugin. I don't even > > think it's unreasonable to enable it by default; I certainly think it's a > > potentially worthwhile discussion. > > > > Is it a sensible compromise to include this plug-in by default for now? > > I think it's sensible to include the plugin in the Fedora package. > Whether it should be enabled by default or not... dunno. It's sensible to include the plugin to aid intermediate and advanced users in mixing repositories. But only with default off. If you read Mr Spaleta and Mr Vidal's notes in the bugzilla RFE, you'll see that default on has a variety of drawbacks. And I'll go further to say that this plugin (default on or default off) doesn't help the novice level user who is the theoretical beneficiary of this change. The end goal, as far as the novice user is concerned, is to install a piece of software and be able to use it on their system. If that package drags in some Core overriding packages that break their system, they aren't getting what they want. If that package is prevented from installing because it drags in some Core overriding packages that won't break their system, they aren't getting what they want. We provide a Linux Distribution. Users and third party developers are free to do with it as they please. Instead of trying to protect users from themselves (something that's doomed to fail -- people are clever enough to outsmart any roadblocks we put in place even if they don't understand why those roadblocks were there in the first place) we need to work with the greater community of packagers to diagnose why things are failing and get them fixed. Let's look at this from another angle: If a new user installs Fedora and finds a bug in our KDE packages which prevent people from logging in with KDE as their session, do we tell them to uninstall KDE and use GNOME instead? No, we tell them to report it as a bug. And if they need to login immediately and there aren't any KDE devels available to help diagnose the issue we may tell them that using GNOME is a workaround until the bug is fixed. Similarly for problems traceable to ATRpms, we should let the user know that ATRpms would like to know about bugs in their packages so they can fix them. And if no one from ATRpms is able to help them diagnose the issue right now we can help them back out the ATRpms packages as a temporary workaround. Should we do this even though ATRpms isn't part of the Fedora Project? Yes, we should. ATRpms is providing a service for our users. It may not work perfectly all the time but it is doing something that we are unable to do ourselves *that our users want*. Axel is willing to work to get issues resolved, both by fixing bugs in his packages and by trying to get changes merged into Fedora packages so he doesn't have to carry the modifications. Instead of worrying about ways to prevent ATRpms packages from getting onto our user's systems (something that our user's *want* to do) we need to take two steps: 1) Report bugs to Axel when they occur in his packages. 2) Help Axel to get his changes merged into Fedora Core. -Toshio -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 189 bytes Desc: This is a digitally signed message part URL: From ed at eh3.com Wed Oct 18 21:55:55 2006 From: ed at eh3.com (Ed Hill) Date: Wed, 18 Oct 2006 17:55:55 -0400 Subject: yum RFE In-Reply-To: <20061018183934.GS2077@polop.usc.edu> References: <200610151852.k9FIqxUN018347@bugzilla.redhat.com> <200610181221.02823.jkeating@redhat.com> <20061018170606.GA24314@devserv.devel.redhat.com> <200610181341.03027.jkeating@redhat.com> <20061018183934.GS2077@polop.usc.edu> Message-ID: <20061018175555.4e074feb@ernie> On Wed, 18 Oct 2006 11:39:34 -0700 Garrick Staples wrote: > On Wed, Oct 18, 2006 at 02:16:22PM -0400, Greg DeKoenigsberg alleged: > > On Wed, 18 Oct 2006, Jesse Keating wrote: > > > On Wednesday 18 October 2006 13:06, Alan Cox wrote: > > > > You mean when it overwrites base packages and breaks stuff ? > > > > > > Then should setup road blocks to using rpm? To adding repos at > > > all? To writing as root? The user had taken the step to add > > > something which did NOT come with his/her installation. Adding a > > > NON "supported" repo. From that point on, they're in the "on > > > your own" land, and I'm perfectly happy with their system getting > > > eaten alive. There is a REASON we don't include those repos. > > > Setting up more (easily removable for those that know) roadblocks > > > will do nothing more than confuse the user even more, and create > > > more hostility toward the 3rd party packagers. > > > > "The operation you're about to perform will replace a core > > package. This could make it more difficult to maintain your > > system. If you're *sure* you want to do this, edit foo and change > > bar to baz." > > > > I believe that could help users -- users that are currently > > struggling to understand the trade-offs between using straight > > Fedora and Fedora+3rd parties. But I don't believe it does > > anything to damage the reputations of 3rd party packagers. > > Not that anyone listens to me, but I'd like to go on record to say > that I think this general idea is terrific. Not only for the newbs, > but also as a useful tool for the experts (so you don't have to go > double checking each new thing). +1 FWIW, I'm listening and I totally agree that it will be useful for everyone from newbies to FE packagers to all the folks between. I think some sort of "protect base" or "protect core + extras" is an excellent idea and should be enabled by default. Please...! Ed -- Edward H. Hill III, PhD | ed at eh3.com | http://eh3.com/ -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 189 bytes Desc: not available URL: From skvidal at linux.duke.edu Wed Oct 18 22:38:09 2006 From: skvidal at linux.duke.edu (seth vidal) Date: Wed, 18 Oct 2006 18:38:09 -0400 Subject: yum RFE In-Reply-To: <1161208352.2913.82.camel@localhost> References: <200610151852.k9FIqxUN018347@bugzilla.redhat.com> <45364F01.5040507@math.unl.edu> <200610181221.02823.jkeating@redhat.com> <1161193129.2975.13.camel@zod.rchland.ibm.com> <1161208352.2913.82.camel@localhost> Message-ID: <1161211089.4259.0.camel@cutter> On Wed, 2006-10-18 at 14:52 -0700, Toshio Kuratomi wrote: > On Wed, 2006-10-18 at 12:38 -0500, Josh Boyer wrote: > > On Wed, 2006-10-18 at 13:15 -0400, Greg DeKoenigsberg wrote: > > > I am reluctantly in Mr. Stone's camp here. > > > > > > Reluctantly, because the strident nature of the evolution of this thread > > > has obscured what I find to be a real issue: the question of what is and > > > isn't "blessed" in the universe of Fedora packages. > > > > > > There are *a lot* of people don't quite understand how packages work -- > > > and they certainly don't understand the ramifications of using a repo that > > > overwrites packages from Core. > > > > > > I don't think it's unreasonable to package this plugin. I don't even > > > think it's unreasonable to enable it by default; I certainly think it's a > > > potentially worthwhile discussion. > > > > > > Is it a sensible compromise to include this plug-in by default for now? > > > > I think it's sensible to include the plugin in the Fedora package. > > Whether it should be enabled by default or not... dunno. > > It's sensible to include the plugin to aid intermediate and advanced > users in mixing repositories. But only with default off. If you read > Mr Spaleta and Mr Vidal's notes in the bugzilla RFE, you'll see that > default on has a variety of drawbacks. And I'll go further to say that > this plugin (default on or default off) doesn't help the novice level > user who is the theoretical beneficiary of this change. > > The end goal, as far as the novice user is concerned, is to install a > piece of software and be able to use it on their system. If that > package drags in some Core overriding packages that break their system, > they aren't getting what they want. If that package is prevented from > installing because it drags in some Core overriding packages that won't > break their system, they aren't getting what they want. > > We provide a Linux Distribution. Users and third party developers are > free to do with it as they please. Instead of trying to protect users > from themselves (something that's doomed to fail -- people are clever > enough to outsmart any roadblocks we put in place even if they don't > understand why those roadblocks were there in the first place) we need > to work with the greater community of packagers to diagnose why things > are failing and get them fixed. > > Let's look at this from another angle: If a new user installs Fedora > and finds a bug in our KDE packages which prevent people from logging in > with KDE as their session, do we tell them to uninstall KDE and use > GNOME instead? No, we tell them to report it as a bug. And if they > need to login immediately and there aren't any KDE devels available to > help diagnose the issue we may tell them that using GNOME is a > workaround until the bug is fixed. Similarly for problems traceable to > ATRpms, we should let the user know that ATRpms would like to know about > bugs in their packages so they can fix them. And if no one from ATRpms > is able to help them diagnose the issue right now we can help them back > out the ATRpms packages as a temporary workaround. > > Should we do this even though ATRpms isn't part of the Fedora Project? > Yes, we should. ATRpms is providing a service for our users. It may > not work perfectly all the time but it is doing something that we are > unable to do ourselves *that our users want*. Axel is willing to work > to get issues resolved, both by fixing bugs in his packages and by > trying to get changes merged into Fedora packages so he doesn't have to > carry the modifications. Instead of worrying about ways to prevent > ATRpms packages from getting onto our user's systems (something that our > user's *want* to do) we need to take two steps: 1) Report bugs to Axel > when they occur in his packages. 2) Help Axel to get his changes merged > into Fedora Core. Toshio, you phrased very well the reason why I closed the bug. Thank You, -sv From skvidal at linux.duke.edu Wed Oct 18 22:39:50 2006 From: skvidal at linux.duke.edu (seth vidal) Date: Wed, 18 Oct 2006 18:39:50 -0400 Subject: yum RFE In-Reply-To: References: <200610151852.k9FIqxUN018347@bugzilla.redhat.com> <20061015222455.GF8727@neu.nirvana> <1160954137.14932.37.camel@localhost.localdomain> <20061015231933.GC20785@devserv.devel.redhat.com> <1160954771.30731.14.camel@cutter> <1160996495.18463.21.camel@vader.jdub.homelinux.org> <45364F01.5040507@math.unl.edu> Message-ID: <1161211190.4259.3.camel@cutter> On Wed, 2006-10-18 at 09:14 -0700, Christopher Stone wrote: > The reason it was closed was because Seth totally misunderstood what > the RFE was trying to accomplish. Set thought that we were trying to > make it impossible or extremely difficult for 3rd parth repos. to > override base packages when the opposite is true. We want to make it > easy for them to do this, but we want the user to have to take an > extra step in order to enable them to do this. And this extra step > should warn the user about the consequences of enabling this. > > We are *trying* to protect unknowning and unsuspecting users here. > No, I'm pretty sure I understood what you wanted to do. I just think that implementing in software that which should be handled in social interaction and policy is a bad idea. You want a technical solution to a socio-political problem. They historically don't work. For evidence of these see Bruce Schneiers website. :) -sv From skvidal at linux.duke.edu Wed Oct 18 22:41:52 2006 From: skvidal at linux.duke.edu (seth vidal) Date: Wed, 18 Oct 2006 18:41:52 -0400 Subject: yum RFE In-Reply-To: <200610181618.13845.jkeating@redhat.com> References: <200610151852.k9FIqxUN018347@bugzilla.redhat.com> <200610181453.44264.meme@daughtersoftiresias.org> <200610181618.13845.jkeating@redhat.com> Message-ID: <1161211312.4259.5.camel@cutter> On Wed, 2006-10-18 at 16:18 -0400, Jesse Keating wrote: > On Wednesday 18 October 2006 15:53, Karen Pease wrote: > > Hmm, this page must not reflect what's present, then: > > > > http://fedoraproject.org/extras/6/i386/repodata/repoview/games.group.html > > > > I just looked at that page, and listed games that I knew had been installed > > on my system with yum that weren't on the list. ;) I > > Repoview uses the rpm 'Group' tag which doesn't reflect what may actually be > in comps, which is what feeds the group views of yum (and thus anaconda, > pirut, etc...). If somebody wants to make repoview use a comps file to sort > groups, by all means... (: repoview can read comps. it uses yum to get to them. -sv From alan at redhat.com Wed Oct 18 23:26:38 2006 From: alan at redhat.com (Alan Cox) Date: Wed, 18 Oct 2006 19:26:38 -0400 Subject: yum RFE In-Reply-To: <1161211190.4259.3.camel@cutter> References: <1160954137.14932.37.camel@localhost.localdomain> <20061015231933.GC20785@devserv.devel.redhat.com> <1160954771.30731.14.camel@cutter> <1160996495.18463.21.camel@vader.jdub.homelinux.org> <45364F01.5040507@math.unl.edu> <1161211190.4259.3.camel@cutter> Message-ID: <20061018232638.GC16857@devserv.devel.redhat.com> On Wed, Oct 18, 2006 at 06:39:50PM -0400, seth vidal wrote: > You want a technical solution to a socio-political problem. > > They historically don't work. For evidence of these see Bruce Schneiers > website. :) They work very well providing they exist to persuade people and guide them not to enforce [1]. It isn't enforcement we need but guidance There is a very good case for "Package [foo] from 'unimploded-wombats-repository' wishes to replace glibc in your base system. This may lead to future update or incompatibility problems. Are you sure Y/N" There is no case for "Package [foo] is trying to replace a base package. This is evil and we have decreed Axel sucks"; exit 1 Alan [1] I would suggest reading "The Design of Everyday Things" for a thousand examples. Or for a simple modern one consider an ATM. When you take money out it gives you the card back first and waits for you to remove it. This is a very successful technical solution to a social problem (forgetfulness). It is not an enforcement system however as you can still leave your card behind if you wish. Other mundane technical solutions to social problems include things like money (complexity and reliability of barter trading). From jspaleta at gmail.com Wed Oct 18 23:39:39 2006 From: jspaleta at gmail.com (Jeff Spaleta) Date: Wed, 18 Oct 2006 15:39:39 -0800 Subject: yum RFE In-Reply-To: References: <200610151852.k9FIqxUN018347@bugzilla.redhat.com> <45364F01.5040507@math.unl.edu> <200610181221.02823.jkeating@redhat.com> Message-ID: <604aa7910610181639p53d66703t1efe892ea7312cd6@mail.gmail.com> On 10/18/06, Christopher Stone wrote: > I think this is better than some poor user who is forced to remove all > packages from a certain repository by hand after their system becomes > messed up. I could not disagree more. If a repository maintainer isn't responding to that repository's users by address the problems.. then users should stop using that repo en-masse. We should not apply poorly conceived protectionist default policies to restrict how users interact with 3rd party repos. Users of those additonal repos either go talk to the repo maintainers and help fix the packaging problems... or people stop using the repos. If we attempt to make it easier for ignorant users to use repos in ways that even the repo maintainers don't even claim to test for reliability all you are going to do is encourage people to ignore their responsibility to communicate problems back to the repo maintainers... and the underlying technical, organizational, and communication problems will never get resolved. We can not and should not attempt to constrain the polices from other repos from a privledged position simpy because we have input into what Core's default settings are. > > There was a poor unfortunate user on #fedora just yesterday who ran > into this problem and was forced to uninstall all 3rd party repo > packages which due to dependencies resulted in uninstalling and > reinstalling dozens of packages. This is *much* more freightening and > confusing to unsuspecting users if you ask me. Your responsibility is to first drive any user who is experiencing a technical problem to the appropriate forum and bug tracking entity. Telling them to uninstall everything before attempting to communicate with the 3rd party maintainers who can potentially address this issue is no different then telling them to uninstall Fedora and try Suse instead of filing a bugreport. Moreover, by short-circuiting the issue tracking for 3rd party software you are not doing anything to prevent the technical problems from re-occuring. All you are doing is perpetuating your own personal bias against the 3rd party repo. I'm all about personal bias, I live for it.. but I first want to make sure that I do what I can to prevent technical problems from re-ocurring... not just paper over them and pretend they don't exist by hoping some restrictive default depresolving policies protect users. The fact is default protective policies are only going to trade the types of issues users currently see for newer harder to diagnose issues. Harder to diagnose because the protective default clientside policy will be in direct conflict with how the 3rd party maintainers have designed their repo to work. If you aren't using the 3rd party repos as directed, then you greatly reduce the chance that the repo maintainer will be able to reproduce and fix the issue... even if users take the time to communicate it to them. And for those of you following along in this discussion who are sentimental to this sort of protectionist prattle, cough gdk cough, let me reiterate what I said in the bugreport, that a default protection policy is a complete and utter waste of time. In fact its damaging in the long run. I garun-goddamn-tee that if a default protection policy gets in the way a 3rd party repo is designed to work on a system, that repo maintainers will craft package scriptlets to disable that protection policy to ensure the repo works as designed. Thus we all lose the ability to use these features to establish are own policies on an as-needed basis. How about this, how about we stop being reactionary and start being proactive. How about we actually craft useful tools to help inexperienced users discover 3rd party repos and to inform them about the organization of that repo and how it will interact with your other repos... BEFORE they suck packages from it? How about we encourage informed decision making by desktop users, BEFORE we decide to enforce Fedora contributor organizational policies on 3rd party repos. We have completely seperated the configuration of a new repo from the important step of understanding what the repo is designed for. Why is that? Why don't we make it so end-users can get repolevel information of merit before they enable that repo..without trolling a website faq? I firmly believe that users are making poor decisions when they choose to use some 3rd party repos because its too damn easy to enable a new repo and suck on it, without doing any due-diligence with regard to reading up on the repo at all. I would rather help them make better informed decisions through clientside tools which incoroprate repolevel information then to pretend that we can control how they interact with other repos. We can not control how 3rd party repos work so we should not pretend by using protectionist policies by default. 3rd party repos exist for a variety of reasons, some of these repos are well known and public.. some of them sit inhouse inside corporate or academic networks. Regardless of the purist attitude we tend to take about putting Core and Extras on a pedestal, the reality is there are situational reasons to replace Core and Extras packages. I do it with my own in-house repos. And if I find one of my users being told to uninstall inhouse packages instead of communicating technical problems back to me.. well lets just say its been a while since I've played softball and I need some batting practise with human head sized targets. We could in fact debate the validity of reasons to replace Core and Extras packages all the live long day, but at the end of the day 3rd party repos control their own policies and structures and we should not enforce our own opinions as to how those repos should be dealing with their userbase. We can establish best practises and associated metrics and tools for users to make their own decisions as to which repos to use based on those best practices. -jef"I'll be damned if I let any individual in the Fedora contributor undo the slow progress towards better communication and cooperation with 3rd party repos without putting up a fight. Biased reactionary protectionist attitudes do not build bridges into the future. Stop looking for the easy way out and start communicating with respect or I'm going to make it my mission to drown you out in every single mailinglist that I can find by posting 14 page long rambling diatribes, so lengthy and obtuse that it will instantly drain whatever passion or interest anyone had in the original topic, which noone will remember 2 pages into my post. All that people will do is skip to my sig and chuckle."spaleta From jspaleta at gmail.com Wed Oct 18 23:54:05 2006 From: jspaleta at gmail.com (Jeff Spaleta) Date: Wed, 18 Oct 2006 15:54:05 -0800 Subject: yum RFE In-Reply-To: <20061018232638.GC16857@devserv.devel.redhat.com> References: <1160954137.14932.37.camel@localhost.localdomain> <1160954771.30731.14.camel@cutter> <1160996495.18463.21.camel@vader.jdub.homelinux.org> <45364F01.5040507@math.unl.edu> <1161211190.4259.3.camel@cutter> <20061018232638.GC16857@devserv.devel.redhat.com> Message-ID: <604aa7910610181654j21ea6130qb01ef8c009f468d2@mail.gmail.com> On 10/18/06, Alan Cox wrote: > "Package [foo] from 'unimploded-wombats-repository' wishes to replace glibc > in your base system. This may lead to future update or incompatibility > problems. Are you sure Y/N" Can't we go further and have a tool that proactively looks at cross-repo conflicts when a new repo is enabled so users can get a summary of exactly those packages which may be replaced before the actual package management action takes place? I am weary of any dialog that happens during an actual package management operation. If a user want to install package foo and gets this.. are they really going to feel compelled to stop and think about it or are they going to just going to treat it like a pointless eula-like nag dialog and click through? I'd rather see this sort of information stuff happen at repo enabling before any user directed package management action is attempted. Do you plan to treat the fedora-core-updates and fedora-core-updates-testing fedora-core-development repos in the same way as 3rd party repos with this nag dialog? And if you have a mechanism to suppress this dialog for these fedora branded repos which replace packages from fedora-core-base, isn't that mechanism easily subverted by any 3rd party who wishes to turn that dialog off for their repo? -jef From tibbs at math.uh.edu Thu Oct 19 00:02:03 2006 From: tibbs at math.uh.edu (Jason L Tibbitts III) Date: Wed, 18 Oct 2006 19:02:03 -0500 Subject: List of unowned directories In-Reply-To: (Jason L. Tibbitts, III's message of "Wed, 18 Oct 2006 16:08:22 -0500") References: <1161035618.10154.6.camel@scriabin.tannenrauch.ch> <1161124940.3376.242.camel@pmac.infradead.org> <1161204946.18925.1.camel@scriabin.tannenrauch.ch> Message-ID: Well, I added owner address printing (not committed yet) but unfortunately I still have to map from the package back to the source package name in order to get all of the packages. At this point I'm sure it would be better to abandon the nasty hacking and instead work using the Yum libraries where the parsing and data structure work is already done. Which for me would mean properly learning Python. Might as well get around to it some day, but I doubt I'll have anything done soon. - J< From Axel.Thimm at ATrpms.net Thu Oct 19 00:05:46 2006 From: Axel.Thimm at ATrpms.net (Axel Thimm) Date: Thu, 19 Oct 2006 02:05:46 +0200 Subject: yum RFE In-Reply-To: <604aa7910610181654j21ea6130qb01ef8c009f468d2@mail.gmail.com> References: <1160954771.30731.14.camel@cutter> <1160996495.18463.21.camel@vader.jdub.homelinux.org> <45364F01.5040507@math.unl.edu> <1161211190.4259.3.camel@cutter> <20061018232638.GC16857@devserv.devel.redhat.com> <604aa7910610181654j21ea6130qb01ef8c009f468d2@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <20061019000546.GB21890@neu.nirvana> On Wed, Oct 18, 2006 at 03:54:05PM -0800, Jeff Spaleta wrote: > On 10/18/06, Alan Cox wrote: > >"Package [foo] from 'unimploded-wombats-repository' wishes to replace glibc > > in your base system. This may lead to future update or incompatibility > > problems. Are you sure Y/N" > > Can't we go further and have a tool that proactively looks at > cross-repo conflicts when a new repo is enabled so users can get a > summary of exactly those packages which may be replaced before the > actual package management action takes place? I'd love to have such a tool for being able to create two different subrepos automagically, a non-replacing one and the rest (or full content). The latter shouldn't only list direct relationshsips (like upgrades/obsoletes), but also dependent packages, e.g. if superfoo requires baz >= 2, and the base repo only has baz 1, the both baz-2 and superfoo should be considered conflicting with the base repo (this is to prevent a subrepo of non-replacing packages w/o closure). The tool's mechanics could probably be used both on the client and server side (yum and createrepo). -- Axel.Thimm at ATrpms.net -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 189 bytes Desc: not available URL: From ed at eh3.com Thu Oct 19 00:15:32 2006 From: ed at eh3.com (Ed Hill) Date: Wed, 18 Oct 2006 20:15:32 -0400 Subject: yum RFE In-Reply-To: <20061018232638.GC16857@devserv.devel.redhat.com> References: <1160954137.14932.37.camel@localhost.localdomain> <20061015231933.GC20785@devserv.devel.redhat.com> <1160954771.30731.14.camel@cutter> <1160996495.18463.21.camel@vader.jdub.homelinux.org> <45364F01.5040507@math.unl.edu> <1161211190.4259.3.camel@cutter> <20061018232638.GC16857@devserv.devel.redhat.com> Message-ID: <20061018201532.00c9e042@ernie> On Wed, 18 Oct 2006 19:26:38 -0400 Alan Cox wrote: > On Wed, Oct 18, 2006 at 06:39:50PM -0400, seth vidal wrote: > > You want a technical solution to a socio-political problem. > > > > They historically don't work. For evidence of these see Bruce > > Schneiers website. :) > > They work very well providing they exist to persuade people and guide > them not to enforce [1]. It isn't enforcement we need but guidance > > There is a very good case for > > "Package [foo] from 'unimploded-wombats-repository' wishes to replace > glibc in your base system. This may lead to future update or > incompatibility problems. Are you sure Y/N" Yes! And perhaps add a URL to a page containing a more in-depth explanation. The aspect that many people (esp. Seth Vidal) seem to be overlooking is the opportunity to *help* people understand what's happening. And what the implications are and why. People can learn from experience. And people can make more informed judgements when the information is at hand. Ed -- Edward H. Hill III, PhD | ed at eh3.com | http://eh3.com/ -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 189 bytes Desc: not available URL: From chris.stone at gmail.com Thu Oct 19 00:20:58 2006 From: chris.stone at gmail.com (Christopher Stone) Date: Wed, 18 Oct 2006 17:20:58 -0700 Subject: Agressive FUD by Fedora contributor (was: [Bug 210775]) In-Reply-To: <200610181343.33172.jkeating@redhat.com> References: <200610151852.k9FIqxUN018347@bugzilla.redhat.com> <200610181202.07509.jkeating@redhat.com> <200610181343.33172.jkeating@redhat.com> Message-ID: Just FYI, I have filed over 110+ bugs against ATrpms for conflicts against FC/FE repositories. The tracker bug is here: http://bugzilla.atrpms.net/show_bug.cgi?id=1028 Let's hope some good becomes of this. From jwboyer at jdub.homelinux.org Thu Oct 19 00:41:07 2006 From: jwboyer at jdub.homelinux.org (Josh Boyer) Date: Wed, 18 Oct 2006 19:41:07 -0500 Subject: Agressive FUD by Fedora contributor (was: [Bug 210775]) In-Reply-To: References: <200610151852.k9FIqxUN018347@bugzilla.redhat.com> <200610181202.07509.jkeating@redhat.com> <200610181343.33172.jkeating@redhat.com> Message-ID: <1161218467.18463.33.camel@vader.jdub.homelinux.org> On Wed, 2006-10-18 at 17:20 -0700, Christopher Stone wrote: > Just FYI, > > I have filed over 110+ bugs against ATrpms for conflicts against FC/FE > repositories. The tracker bug is here: > > http://bugzilla.atrpms.net/show_bug.cgi?id=1028 > > Let's hope some good becomes of this. I hope this is a step in the right direction. Thank you for getting back to a technical solution. josh From Axel.Thimm at ATrpms.net Thu Oct 19 01:03:25 2006 From: Axel.Thimm at ATrpms.net (Axel Thimm) Date: Thu, 19 Oct 2006 03:03:25 +0200 Subject: Agressive FUD by Fedora contributor (was: [Bug 210775]) In-Reply-To: <1161218467.18463.33.camel@vader.jdub.homelinux.org> References: <200610151852.k9FIqxUN018347@bugzilla.redhat.com> <200610181202.07509.jkeating@redhat.com> <200610181343.33172.jkeating@redhat.com> <1161218467.18463.33.camel@vader.jdub.homelinux.org> Message-ID: <20061019010325.GC21890@neu.nirvana> On Wed, Oct 18, 2006 at 07:41:07PM -0500, Josh Boyer wrote: > On Wed, 2006-10-18 at 17:20 -0700, Christopher Stone wrote: > > Just FYI, > > > > I have filed over 110+ bugs against ATrpms for conflicts against FC/FE > > repositories. The tracker bug is here: > > > > http://bugzilla.atrpms.net/show_bug.cgi?id=1028 > > > > Let's hope some good becomes of this. > > I hope this is a step in the right direction. Thank you for getting > back to a technical solution. Drowning bugzilla.atrpms.net in a pile of *empty* [1] bug reports against non-broken packages a technical solution? That's more like spamming and stalking. I'm trying to get people to use bugzilla.atrpms.net, now it's a dump. Note that spot's suggestion was that "if this is as big of a problem as [Christopher Stone] claims, [he should] start filing bugs if/when things break", not to bugzilla *empty* (!!) reports. I don't like , should I file a bug against all it's packages stating the same text all over again? It's getting more ridicule and awkward by the minute, someone has to stop this, please. [1] They all share the exact same text but the package name, just like a mass legal dissuasion (don't know if that habit exists across the ocean) -- Axel.Thimm at ATrpms.net -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 189 bytes Desc: not available URL: From jwboyer at jdub.homelinux.org Thu Oct 19 01:20:18 2006 From: jwboyer at jdub.homelinux.org (Josh Boyer) Date: Wed, 18 Oct 2006 20:20:18 -0500 Subject: Agressive FUD by Fedora contributor (was: [Bug 210775]) In-Reply-To: <20061019010325.GC21890@neu.nirvana> References: <200610151852.k9FIqxUN018347@bugzilla.redhat.com> <200610181202.07509.jkeating@redhat.com> <200610181343.33172.jkeating@redhat.com> <1161218467.18463.33.camel@vader.jdub.homelinux.org> <20061019010325.GC21890@neu.nirvana> Message-ID: <1161220818.18463.41.camel@vader.jdub.homelinux.org> On Thu, 2006-10-19 at 03:03 +0200, Axel Thimm wrote: > On Wed, Oct 18, 2006 at 07:41:07PM -0500, Josh Boyer wrote: > > On Wed, 2006-10-18 at 17:20 -0700, Christopher Stone wrote: > > > Just FYI, > > > > > > I have filed over 110+ bugs against ATrpms for conflicts against FC/FE > > > repositories. The tracker bug is here: > > > > > > http://bugzilla.atrpms.net/show_bug.cgi?id=1028 > > > > > > Let's hope some good becomes of this. > > > > I hope this is a step in the right direction. Thank you for getting > > back to a technical solution. > > Drowning bugzilla.atrpms.net in a pile of *empty* [1] bug reports > against non-broken packages a technical solution? That's more like > spamming and stalking. I'm trying to get people to use > bugzilla.atrpms.net, now it's a dump. They aren't empty. They ask for an explanation as to why they override the distribution they are geared towards. Arguably, Christopher could have filed a single bugzilla with a list of all packages that conflict. However that would tend to get messy as per package responses were added. > Note that spot's suggestion was that "if this is as big of a problem > as [Christopher Stone] claims, [he should] start filing bugs if/when > things break", not to bugzilla *empty* (!!) reports. I don't like > , should I file a bug against all it's packages > stating the same text all over again? Look, if you have a package that overrides one that is already present in Core or Extras, then either the Core or Extras package is broken or you have an extra feature turned on, or some other difference. If there is no difference, why do you have the package to begin with? In all those cases, I think it's worth looking at. If it gets documented in your bugzilla and a Core/Extras package is broken we can point back to that when a Fedora bugzilla is opened to _fix_ the brokenness. If it's a feature that we can enable in Extras/Core, then we can also point back to it. > It's getting more ridicule and awkward by the minute, someone has to > stop this, please. If I had done this instead of Christopher, would it be awkward? Or if this thread had never taken place, and this was done would it be awkward? I'm asking because I see this as a step towards getting ATrpms and Fedora working more closely together. If that is truly going to happen, neither side can hold grudges. josh From garrick at usc.edu Thu Oct 19 01:31:52 2006 From: garrick at usc.edu (Garrick Staples) Date: Wed, 18 Oct 2006 18:31:52 -0700 Subject: Agressive FUD by Fedora contributor (was: [Bug 210775]) In-Reply-To: <20061019010325.GC21890@neu.nirvana> References: <200610151852.k9FIqxUN018347@bugzilla.redhat.com> <200610181202.07509.jkeating@redhat.com> <200610181343.33172.jkeating@redhat.com> <1161218467.18463.33.camel@vader.jdub.homelinux.org> <20061019010325.GC21890@neu.nirvana> Message-ID: <20061019013152.GA2077@polop.usc.edu> On Thu, Oct 19, 2006 at 03:03:25AM +0200, Axel Thimm alleged: > On Wed, Oct 18, 2006 at 07:41:07PM -0500, Josh Boyer wrote: > > On Wed, 2006-10-18 at 17:20 -0700, Christopher Stone wrote: > > > Just FYI, > > > > > > I have filed over 110+ bugs against ATrpms for conflicts against FC/FE > > > repositories. The tracker bug is here: > > > > > > http://bugzilla.atrpms.net/show_bug.cgi?id=1028 > > > > > > Let's hope some good becomes of this. > > > > I hope this is a step in the right direction. Thank you for getting > > back to a technical solution. > > Drowning bugzilla.atrpms.net in a pile of *empty* [1] bug reports > against non-broken packages a technical solution? That's more like > spamming and stalking. I'm trying to get people to use > bugzilla.atrpms.net, now it's a dump. Would you like help going through them? -- Garrick Staples, Linux/HPCC Administrator University of Southern California -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 189 bytes Desc: not available URL: From skvidal at linux.duke.edu Thu Oct 19 03:08:13 2006 From: skvidal at linux.duke.edu (seth vidal) Date: Wed, 18 Oct 2006 23:08:13 -0400 Subject: yum RFE In-Reply-To: <20061018201532.00c9e042@ernie> References: <1160954137.14932.37.camel@localhost.localdomain> <20061015231933.GC20785@devserv.devel.redhat.com> <1160954771.30731.14.camel@cutter> <1160996495.18463.21.camel@vader.jdub.homelinux.org> <45364F01.5040507@math.unl.edu> <1161211190.4259.3.camel@cutter> <20061018232638.GC16857@devserv.devel.redhat.com> <20061018201532.00c9e042@ernie> Message-ID: <1161227293.4471.46.camel@cutter> On Wed, 2006-10-18 at 20:15 -0400, Ed Hill wrote: > On Wed, 18 Oct 2006 19:26:38 -0400 Alan Cox wrote: > > > On Wed, Oct 18, 2006 at 06:39:50PM -0400, seth vidal wrote: > > > You want a technical solution to a socio-political problem. > > > > > > They historically don't work. For evidence of these see Bruce > > > Schneiers website. :) > > > > They work very well providing they exist to persuade people and guide > > them not to enforce [1]. It isn't enforcement we need but guidance > > > > There is a very good case for > > > > "Package [foo] from 'unimploded-wombats-repository' wishes to replace > > glibc in your base system. This may lead to future update or > > incompatibility problems. Are you sure Y/N" > > > Yes! > > And perhaps add a URL to a page containing a more in-depth explanation. > > The aspect that many people (esp. Seth Vidal) seem to be overlooking is > the opportunity to *help* people understand what's happening. And what > the implications are and why. > > People can learn from experience. And people can make more informed > judgements when the information is at hand. > What am I overlooking, exactly? I closed the rfe that wanted this integrated into yum and not handled as a plugin. Nothing keeps this from being done better as a plugin and made available in the default fedora package. However, I don't think this is terribly appropriate code to go into the mainline upstream. -sv From ed at eh3.com Thu Oct 19 03:18:50 2006 From: ed at eh3.com (Ed Hill) Date: Wed, 18 Oct 2006 23:18:50 -0400 Subject: Agressive FUD by Fedora contributor (was: [Bug 210775]) In-Reply-To: <20061019010325.GC21890@neu.nirvana> References: <200610151852.k9FIqxUN018347@bugzilla.redhat.com> <200610181202.07509.jkeating@redhat.com> <200610181343.33172.jkeating@redhat.com> <1161218467.18463.33.camel@vader.jdub.homelinux.org> <20061019010325.GC21890@neu.nirvana> Message-ID: <20061018231850.59ec5f6c@ernie> On Thu, 19 Oct 2006 03:03:25 +0200 Axel Thimm wrote: > On Wed, Oct 18, 2006 at 07:41:07PM -0500, Josh Boyer wrote: > > On Wed, 2006-10-18 at 17:20 -0700, Christopher Stone wrote: > > > Just FYI, > > > > > > I have filed over 110+ bugs against ATrpms for conflicts against > > > FC/FE repositories. The tracker bug is here: > > > > > > http://bugzilla.atrpms.net/show_bug.cgi?id=1028 > > > > > > Let's hope some good becomes of this. > > > > I hope this is a step in the right direction. Thank you for getting > > back to a technical solution. > > Drowning bugzilla.atrpms.net in a pile of *empty* [1] bug reports > against non-broken packages a technical solution? That's more like > spamming and stalking. I'm trying to get people to use > bugzilla.atrpms.net, now it's a dump. > > Note that spot's suggestion was that "if this is as big of a problem > as [Christopher Stone] claims, [he should] start filing bugs if/when > things break", not to bugzilla *empty* (!!) reports. I don't like > , should I file a bug against all it's packages > stating the same text all over again? > > It's getting more ridicule and awkward by the minute, someone has to > stop this, please. > > [1] They all share the exact same text but the package name, just > like a mass legal dissuasion (don't know if that habit exists > across the ocean) Hi Axel, While I'm waiting for my ATrpms bugzilla account info to get mailed back, I'll start with a package that, as a scientific software developer, I actually care about: fftw http://bugzilla.atrpms.net/show_bug.cgi?id=937 As far as I can tell (and I admittedly don't know the intimate details of the ATrpms build bits and the flags it uses) the differences between the FE6 fftw rpms and the AT-for-FC6 rpms are: - the AT version includes the *.la files. Thats it. I don't see any other substantive changes. If you *really* need those *.la files then you can always create an add-on package (as described earlier in this thread) and ship them as some sort of "fftw-la" or similar. But why would Fedora need them...? Or are there more subtle changes that I'm somehow missing? If so, please point them out because, as an fftw user, I'm sincerely interested in hearing why one version may be better than another. Ed -- Edward H. Hill III, PhD | ed at eh3.com | http://eh3.com/ -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 189 bytes Desc: not available URL: From tcallawa at redhat.com Thu Oct 19 04:07:53 2006 From: tcallawa at redhat.com (Tom 'spot' Callaway) Date: Wed, 18 Oct 2006 23:07:53 -0500 Subject: Agressive FUD by Fedora contributor (was: [Bug 210775]) In-Reply-To: <20061019010325.GC21890@neu.nirvana> References: <200610151852.k9FIqxUN018347@bugzilla.redhat.com> <200610181202.07509.jkeating@redhat.com> <200610181343.33172.jkeating@redhat.com> <1161218467.18463.33.camel@vader.jdub.homelinux.org> <20061019010325.GC21890@neu.nirvana> Message-ID: <1161230873.2909.23.camel@localhost.localdomain> On Thu, 2006-10-19 at 03:03 +0200, Axel Thimm wrote: > On Wed, Oct 18, 2006 at 07:41:07PM -0500, Josh Boyer wrote: > > On Wed, 2006-10-18 at 17:20 -0700, Christopher Stone wrote: > > > Just FYI, > > > > > > I have filed over 110+ bugs against ATrpms for conflicts against FC/FE > > > repositories. The tracker bug is here: > > > > > > http://bugzilla.atrpms.net/show_bug.cgi?id=1028 > > > > > > Let's hope some good becomes of this. > > > > I hope this is a step in the right direction. Thank you for getting > > back to a technical solution. > > Drowning bugzilla.atrpms.net in a pile of *empty* [1] bug reports > against non-broken packages a technical solution? That's more like > spamming and stalking. I'm trying to get people to use > bugzilla.atrpms.net, now it's a dump. Would you like some help going through them? I'd be willing to work on this on Friday. ~spot -- Tom "spot" Callaway || Red Hat || Fedora || Aurora || GPG ID: 93054260 "We must not confuse dissent with disloyalty. We must remember always that accusation is not proof and that conviction depends upon evidence and due process of law. We will not walk in fear, one of another. We will not be driven by fear into an age of unreason, if we dig deep in our history and our doctrine, and remember that we are not descended from fearful men -- not from men who feared to write, to speak, to associate and to defend causes that were, for the moment, unpopular." -- Edward R. Murrow, March 9, 1954 From chris.stone at gmail.com Thu Oct 19 06:22:55 2006 From: chris.stone at gmail.com (Christopher Stone) Date: Wed, 18 Oct 2006 23:22:55 -0700 Subject: Apology to Axel and Lists Message-ID: I would like to apologize to Axel and the mailing lists for some of the things I have written in the past few days which has lead to quite an extensive flame war over an issue we are all passionate about -- Fedora. When building bridges it is good to look for commonality between adversaries and Axel and I have one thing in common which is that we both want the best experience possible for Fedora users. Accomplishing this goal through flame wars is *not* the way to go, and I apologize to the mailing list and Axel for feeding the flame. From this point on I promise to try my best to be as tactful as possible in this and all future discussions on the list. I am confident that going from here forward we can all work together to make Fedora the best distribution on the planet, and I hope Axel feels the same way. Hopefully we can work together to work out our problems and come to an agreeable solution for everyone. I look forward to working with Axel and the rest of the community with technical discussions to make the highest quality packages and repositories to ultimately give the best possible experience for Fedora users. Sincerely, Christopher Stone aka XulChris From garrick at usc.edu Thu Oct 19 06:27:38 2006 From: garrick at usc.edu (Garrick Staples) Date: Wed, 18 Oct 2006 23:27:38 -0700 Subject: Agressive FUD by Fedora contributor (was: [Bug 210775]) In-Reply-To: <20061019013152.GA2077@polop.usc.edu> References: <200610151852.k9FIqxUN018347@bugzilla.redhat.com> <200610181202.07509.jkeating@redhat.com> <200610181343.33172.jkeating@redhat.com> <1161218467.18463.33.camel@vader.jdub.homelinux.org> <20061019010325.GC21890@neu.nirvana> <20061019013152.GA2077@polop.usc.edu> Message-ID: <20061019062738.GB2077@polop.usc.edu> On Wed, Oct 18, 2006 at 06:31:52PM -0700, Garrick Staples alleged: > On Thu, Oct 19, 2006 at 03:03:25AM +0200, Axel Thimm alleged: > > On Wed, Oct 18, 2006 at 07:41:07PM -0500, Josh Boyer wrote: > > > On Wed, 2006-10-18 at 17:20 -0700, Christopher Stone wrote: > > > > Just FYI, > > > > > > > > I have filed over 110+ bugs against ATrpms for conflicts against FC/FE > > > > repositories. The tracker bug is here: > > > > > > > > http://bugzilla.atrpms.net/show_bug.cgi?id=1028 > > > > > > > > Let's hope some good becomes of this. > > > > > > I hope this is a step in the right direction. Thank you for getting > > > back to a technical solution. > > > > Drowning bugzilla.atrpms.net in a pile of *empty* [1] bug reports > > against non-broken packages a technical solution? That's more like > > spamming and stalking. I'm trying to get people to use > > bugzilla.atrpms.net, now it's a dump. > > Would you like help going through them? I went through the first dozen or so, researching the differences between the FE and ATrpms packages by reading the spec files. Most of them seem OK to retire from ATrpms. I filed a bug against aalib to get ncurses support. Some I'm clearly not qualified to judge (like bugzilla and clamav) since those are big packages that I don't use. If you are OK with this, I'll go through some more tomorrow. -- Garrick Staples, Linux/HPCC Administrator University of Southern California -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 189 bytes Desc: not available URL: From nicolas.mailhot at laposte.net Thu Oct 19 06:33:37 2006 From: nicolas.mailhot at laposte.net (Nicolas Mailhot) Date: Thu, 19 Oct 2006 08:33:37 +0200 Subject: yum RFE In-Reply-To: <1161208352.2913.82.camel@localhost> References: <200610151852.k9FIqxUN018347@bugzilla.redhat.com> <45364F01.5040507@math.unl.edu> <200610181221.02823.jkeating@redhat.com> <1161193129.2975.13.camel@zod.rchland.ibm.com> <1161208352.2913.82.camel@localhost> Message-ID: <1161239617.5169.14.camel@rousalka.dyndns.org> Le mercredi 18 octobre 2006 ? 14:52 -0700, Toshio Kuratomi a ?crit : > On Wed, 2006-10-18 at 12:38 -0500, Josh Boyer wrote: > > On Wed, 2006-10-18 at 13:15 -0400, Greg DeKoenigsberg wrote: > ether it should be enabled by default or not... dunno. > > It's sensible to include the plugin to aid intermediate and advanced > users in mixing repositories. But only with default off. > > The end goal, as far as the novice user is concerned, is to install a > piece of software Ok > and be able to use it on their system. Which implies not breaking said system with core replacements > Instead of trying to protect users > from themselves (something that's doomed to fail -- people are clever > enough to outsmart any roadblocks we put in place even if they don't > understand why those roadblocks were there in the first place) we need > to work with the greater community of packagers to diagnose why things > are failing and get them fixed. Fixing things so atrpms doesn't break some setups or people don't have to go atrpms is certainly the priority. *However* blindly accepting any command in Yum just because in the end the user will do whatever he wants is not ok. We *are* protecting people from themselves. People *expect* the system to warn them when they're about to do something stupid. Need I remind you we're not running as root by default for example? Also, protectbase is far from being as restrictive as it could. Typically users go to third party-repositories for one or two specific needs, and then pull all sorts of unrelated packages because declaring a repo exposes all its contents. A very useful yum restriction would be to allow a repo only for a specific package list (pulling dependencies as needed from the same repo, provided they can't be satisfied by a more trusted one). And yes ultimately the repo owner can poison his packages to rewrite the repo setup, but : 1. most repo owners are responsible people which won't ever do this 2. *that* would be ground for official Fedora blacklisting 3. a package can do all sorts of other things on the system, we've never refused to do anything because some other third-party package could disable it (because in that case we wouldn't setting any policy) Regards, -- Nicolas Mailhot From nicolas.mailhot at laposte.net Thu Oct 19 06:46:27 2006 From: nicolas.mailhot at laposte.net (Nicolas Mailhot) Date: Thu, 19 Oct 2006 08:46:27 +0200 Subject: yum RFE In-Reply-To: <604aa7910610181639p53d66703t1efe892ea7312cd6@mail.gmail.com> References: <200610151852.k9FIqxUN018347@bugzilla.redhat.com> <45364F01.5040507@math.unl.edu> <200610181221.02823.jkeating@redhat.com> <604aa7910610181639p53d66703t1efe892ea7312cd6@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <1161240387.5169.21.camel@rousalka.dyndns.org> Le mercredi 18 octobre 2006 ? 15:39 -0800, Jeff Spaleta a ?crit : > On 10/18/06, Christopher Stone wrote: > > I think this is better than some poor user who is forced to remove all > > packages from a certain repository by hand after their system becomes > > messed up. > > I could not disagree more. If a repository maintainer isn't > responding to that repository's users by address the problems.. then > users should stop using that repo en-masse. That's a nice theorical view. Real world is not like this ? users do not have perfect insight, neither before using a repo (atrpm is dangerous is restricted to technical circles) nor after using it (so the system broke ? most users will blame Linux and/or Fedora in general not a specific repo or package) In the actual world repo owners have to work hard to get feedback, which implies being nice to users even when they are wrong in blaming your package. It's humanly easy not to see things if you don't want to. -- Nicolas Mailhot From paul at city-fan.org Thu Oct 19 07:25:29 2006 From: paul at city-fan.org (Paul Howarth) Date: Thu, 19 Oct 2006 08:25:29 +0100 Subject: yum RFE In-Reply-To: <1161239617.5169.14.camel@rousalka.dyndns.org> References: <200610151852.k9FIqxUN018347@bugzilla.redhat.com> <45364F01.5040507@math.unl.edu> <200610181221.02823.jkeating@redhat.com> <1161193129.2975.13.camel@zod.rchland.ibm.com> <1161208352.2913.82.camel@localhost> <1161239617.5169.14.camel@rousalka.dyndns.org> Message-ID: <1161242730.10376.2.camel@metropolis.intra.city-fan.org> On Thu, 2006-10-19 at 08:33 +0200, Nicolas Mailhot wrote: > lso, protectbase is far from being as restrictive as it could. > Typically users go to third party-repositories for one or two specific > needs, and then pull all sorts of unrelated packages because declaring a > repo exposes all its contents. A very useful yum restriction would be to > allow a repo only for a specific package list (pulling dependencies as > needed from the same repo, provided they can't be satisfied by a more > trusted one). This is already do-able using "includepkgs=" in the repo file, isn't it? Paul. From luya_tfz at thefinalzone.com Thu Oct 19 07:37:45 2006 From: luya_tfz at thefinalzone.com (Luya Tshimbalanga) Date: Thu, 19 Oct 2006 15:37:45 +0800 Subject: Agressive FUD by Fedora contributor (was: [Bug 210775]) Message-ID: > > On Thu, 19 Oct 2006 03:03:25 +0200 Axel Thimm > wrote: > > > On Wed, Oct 18, 2006 at 07:41:07PM -0500, Josh Boyer wrote: > > > On Wed, 2006-10-18 at 17:20 -0700, Christopher Stone wrote: > > > > Just FYI, > > > > > > > > I have filed over 110+ bugs against ATrpms for conflicts against > > > > FC/FE repositories. The tracker bug is here: > > > > > > > > http://bugzilla.atrpms.net/show_bug.cgi?id=1028 > > > > > > > > Let's hope some good becomes of this. > > > > > > I hope this is a step in the right direction. Thank you for getting > > > back to a technical solution. > > > > Drowning bugzilla.atrpms.net in a pile of *empty* [1] bug reports > > against non-broken packages a technical solution? That's more like > > spamming and stalking. I'm trying to get people to use > > bugzilla.atrpms.net, now it's a dump. > > > > Note that spot's suggestion was that "if this is as big of a problem > > as [Christopher Stone] claims, [he should] start filing bugs if/when > > things break", not to bugzilla *empty* (!!) reports. I don't like > > , should I file a bug against all it's packages > > stating the same text all over again? > > > > It's getting more ridicule and awkward by the minute, someone has to > > stop this, please. > > > > [1] They all share the exact same text but the package name, just > > like a mass legal dissuasion (don't know if that habit exists > > across the ocean) > > > Hi Axel, > > While I'm waiting for my ATrpms bugzilla account info to get mailed > back, I'll start with a package that, as a scientific software > developer, I actually care about: fftw > > http://bugzilla.atrpms.net/show_bug.cgi?id=937 > > As far as I can tell (and I admittedly don't know the intimate details > of the ATrpms build bits and the flags it uses) the differences between > the FE6 fftw rpms and the AT-for-FC6 rpms are: > > - the AT version includes the *.la files. > > Thats it. I don't see any other substantive changes. If you *really* > need those *.la files then you can always create an add-on package (as > described earlier in this thread) and ship them as some sort of > "fftw-la" or similar. But why would Fedora need them...? > > Or are there more subtle changes that I'm somehow missing? If so, > please point them out because, as an fftw user, I'm sincerely > interested in hearing why one version may be better than another. > > Ed > > -- > Edward H. Hill III, PhD | ed at eh3.com | http://eh3.com/ > > Wasn't the same "la" file that is subject for vulnerability? There is a reason why Fedora Core does not use it. Maybe someone needs to rebuild package without it. Luya Tshimbalanga -- Fedora Project Contributor http://www.fedoraproject.org/wiki/LuyaTshimbalanga http://www.fedoranews.org From luya_tfz at thefinalzone.com Thu Oct 19 07:38:21 2006 From: luya_tfz at thefinalzone.com (Luya Tshimbalanga) Date: Thu, 19 Oct 2006 15:38:21 +0800 Subject: Agressive FUD by Fedora contributor (was: [Bug 210775]) Message-ID: > > On Thu, 19 Oct 2006 03:03:25 +0200 Axel Thimm > wrote: > > > On Wed, Oct 18, 2006 at 07:41:07PM -0500, Josh Boyer wrote: > > > On Wed, 2006-10-18 at 17:20 -0700, Christopher Stone wrote: > > > > Just FYI, > > > > > > > > I have filed over 110+ bugs against ATrpms for conflicts against > > > > FC/FE repositories. The tracker bug is here: > > > > > > > > http://bugzilla.atrpms.net/show_bug.cgi?id=1028 > > > > > > > > Let's hope some good becomes of this. > > > > > > I hope this is a step in the right direction. Thank you for getting > > > back to a technical solution. > > > > Drowning bugzilla.atrpms.net in a pile of *empty* [1] bug reports > > against non-broken packages a technical solution? That's more like > > spamming and stalking. I'm trying to get people to use > > bugzilla.atrpms.net, now it's a dump. > > > > Note that spot's suggestion was that "if this is as big of a problem > > as [Christopher Stone] claims, [he should] start filing bugs if/when > > things break", not to bugzilla *empty* (!!) reports. I don't like > > , should I file a bug against all it's packages > > stating the same text all over again? > > > > It's getting more ridicule and awkward by the minute, someone has to > > stop this, please. > > > > [1] They all share the exact same text but the package name, just > > like a mass legal dissuasion (don't know if that habit exists > > across the ocean) > > > Hi Axel, > > While I'm waiting for my ATrpms bugzilla account info to get mailed > back, I'll start with a package that, as a scientific software > developer, I actually care about: fftw > > http://bugzilla.atrpms.net/show_bug.cgi?id=937 > > As far as I can tell (and I admittedly don't know the intimate details > of the ATrpms build bits and the flags it uses) the differences between > the FE6 fftw rpms and the AT-for-FC6 rpms are: > > - the AT version includes the *.la files. > > Thats it. I don't see any other substantive changes. If you *really* > need those *.la files then you can always create an add-on package (as > described earlier in this thread) and ship them as some sort of > "fftw-la" or similar. But why would Fedora need them...? > > Or are there more subtle changes that I'm somehow missing? If so, > please point them out because, as an fftw user, I'm sincerely > interested in hearing why one version may be better than another. > > Ed > > -- > Edward H. Hill III, PhD | ed at eh3.com | http://eh3.com/ > > Wasn't the same "la" file that is subject for vulnerability? There is a reason why Fedora Core does not use it. Maybe someone needs to rebuild package without it. Luya Tshimbalanga -- Fedora Project Contributor http://www.fedoraproject.org/wiki/LuyaTshimbalanga http://www.fedoranews.org From luya_tfz at thefinalzone.com Thu Oct 19 07:38:35 2006 From: luya_tfz at thefinalzone.com (Luya Tshimbalanga) Date: Thu, 19 Oct 2006 15:38:35 +0800 Subject: Agressive FUD by Fedora contributor (was: [Bug 210775]) Message-ID: > > On Thu, 19 Oct 2006 03:03:25 +0200 Axel Thimm > wrote: > > > On Wed, Oct 18, 2006 at 07:41:07PM -0500, Josh Boyer wrote: > > > On Wed, 2006-10-18 at 17:20 -0700, Christopher Stone wrote: > > > > Just FYI, > > > > > > > > I have filed over 110+ bugs against ATrpms for conflicts against > > > > FC/FE repositories. The tracker bug is here: > > > > > > > > http://bugzilla.atrpms.net/show_bug.cgi?id=1028 > > > > > > > > Let's hope some good becomes of this. > > > > > > I hope this is a step in the right direction. Thank you for getting > > > back to a technical solution. > > > > Drowning bugzilla.atrpms.net in a pile of *empty* [1] bug reports > > against non-broken packages a technical solution? That's more like > > spamming and stalking. I'm trying to get people to use > > bugzilla.atrpms.net, now it's a dump. > > > > Note that spot's suggestion was that "if this is as big of a problem > > as [Christopher Stone] claims, [he should] start filing bugs if/when > > things break", not to bugzilla *empty* (!!) reports. I don't like > > , should I file a bug against all it's packages > > stating the same text all over again? > > > > It's getting more ridicule and awkward by the minute, someone has to > > stop this, please. > > > > [1] They all share the exact same text but the package name, just > > like a mass legal dissuasion (don't know if that habit exists > > across the ocean) > > > Hi Axel, > > While I'm waiting for my ATrpms bugzilla account info to get mailed > back, I'll start with a package that, as a scientific software > developer, I actually care about: fftw > > http://bugzilla.atrpms.net/show_bug.cgi?id=937 > > As far as I can tell (and I admittedly don't know the intimate details > of the ATrpms build bits and the flags it uses) the differences between > the FE6 fftw rpms and the AT-for-FC6 rpms are: > > - the AT version includes the *.la files. > > Thats it. I don't see any other substantive changes. If you *really* > need those *.la files then you can always create an add-on package (as > described earlier in this thread) and ship them as some sort of > "fftw-la" or similar. But why would Fedora need them...? > > Or are there more subtle changes that I'm somehow missing? If so, > please point them out because, as an fftw user, I'm sincerely > interested in hearing why one version may be better than another. > > Ed > > -- > Edward H. Hill III, PhD | ed at eh3.com | http://eh3.com/ > > Wasn't the same "la" file that is subject for vulnerability? There is a reason why Fedora Core does not use it. Maybe someone needs to rebuild package without it. Luya Tshimbalanga -- Fedora Project Contributor http://www.fedoraproject.org/wiki/LuyaTshimbalanga http://www.fedoranews.org From Christian.Iseli at licr.org Thu Oct 19 08:33:51 2006 From: Christian.Iseli at licr.org (Christian Iseli) Date: Thu, 19 Oct 2006 10:33:51 +0200 Subject: List of unowned directories In-Reply-To: References: <1161035618.10154.6.camel@scriabin.tannenrauch.ch> <1161124940.3376.242.camel@pmac.infradead.org> <1161204946.18925.1.camel@scriabin.tannenrauch.ch> Message-ID: <20061019103351.6feacf24@ludwig-alpha> On Wed, 18 Oct 2006 19:02:03 -0500, Jason L Tibbitts III wrote: > Which for me would mean properly learning Python. Might as well get > around to it some day, but I doubt I'll have anything done soon. Or maybe just call repoquery to get a list of packages linked to their srpm, something like: repoquery -a --repoid=extras-development \ --qf='%{buildtime} %{name} %{arch} %{version}-%{release} %{sourcerpm}' Then you just parse the output... C From alan at redhat.com Thu Oct 19 08:43:09 2006 From: alan at redhat.com (Alan Cox) Date: Thu, 19 Oct 2006 04:43:09 -0400 Subject: yum RFE In-Reply-To: <604aa7910610181654j21ea6130qb01ef8c009f468d2@mail.gmail.com> References: <1160954771.30731.14.camel@cutter> <1160996495.18463.21.camel@vader.jdub.homelinux.org> <45364F01.5040507@math.unl.edu> <1161211190.4259.3.camel@cutter> <20061018232638.GC16857@devserv.devel.redhat.com> <604aa7910610181654j21ea6130qb01ef8c009f468d2@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <20061019084309.GA5980@devserv.devel.redhat.com> On Wed, Oct 18, 2006 at 03:54:05PM -0800, Jeff Spaleta wrote: > Can't we go further and have a tool that proactively looks at > cross-repo conflicts when a new repo is enabled so users can get a Comflicts arise at resolution time not when repositories are active. They also only affect small bits of repository > summary of exactly those packages which may be replaced before the > actual package management action takes place? I am weary of any dialog > that happens during an actual package management operation. If a user You mean like "do you want to trust this key" ? Might be a case for the repository one to have a "Don't bug me about this rep again" too. > Do you plan to treat the fedora-core-updates and > fedora-core-updates-testing fedora-core-development repos in the same > way as 3rd party repos with this nag dialog? And if you have a > mechanism to suppress this dialog for these fedora branded repos which > replace packages from fedora-core-base, isn't that mechanism easily > subverted by any 3rd party who wishes to turn that dialog off for > their repo? The goal is to help the user not enforce policy. If a repository wishes to turn it off then it can do so, just like it can now. You can't stop that and I don't see why you would. At the point a repo systematically disables a warning and then gets users into trouble social pressure will rapidly resolve it From bugs.michael at gmx.net Thu Oct 19 10:33:39 2006 From: bugs.michael at gmx.net (Michael Schwendt) Date: Thu, 19 Oct 2006 12:33:39 +0200 Subject: Fedora package universe (was: Re: Agressive FUD by...) In-Reply-To: <20061019062738.GB2077@polop.usc.edu> References: <200610151852.k9FIqxUN018347@bugzilla.redhat.com> <200610181202.07509.jkeating@redhat.com> <200610181343.33172.jkeating@redhat.com> <1161218467.18463.33.camel@vader.jdub.homelinux.org> <20061019010325.GC21890@neu.nirvana> <20061019013152.GA2077@polop.usc.edu> <20061019062738.GB2077@polop.usc.edu> Message-ID: <20061019123339.5a7c1398.bugs.michael@gmx.net> On Wed, 18 Oct 2006 23:27:38 -0700, Garrick Staples wrote: > > > > > http://bugzilla.atrpms.net/show_bug.cgi?id=1028 > > Would you like help going through them? > I went through the first dozen or so, researching the differences > between the FE and ATrpms packages by reading the spec files. Most of > them seem OK to retire from ATrpms. I filed a bug against aalib to get > ncurses support. Some I'm clearly not qualified to judge (like bugzilla > and clamav) since those are big packages that I don't use. > > If you are OK with this, I'll go through some more tomorrow. A question raised by this long thread is whether ATrpms is supposed to be an add-on repository to Core or Core+Extras? And that regardless of whether it might continue to upgrade FC/FE packages. The relationship between the repositories is of interest. As soon as it is acknowledged that ATrpms accepts Fedora Extras as another base repository in addition to Core, it makes sense to examine duplicates and conflicts in detail and to increase cooperation. If you have ever before taken the time to talk to "Fedora newbies", they often don't understand what Fedora's package universe is and whether the mixing of Core+Extras and arbitrary 3rd repositories is _Fedora's way_. Is it considered normal by the average Fedora user to fetch software from a dozen different repositories? A good percentage of the newbies you can meet in forums assume it to be Fedora's choice that application FOO is available in repository BAR, no matter whether the repository is available by default or not. With a certain other OS, they are used to visiting many different download locations, too. And with Fedora, locating Yum repositories is easy, adding them is easy. Telling other users where to get something is easy, too. User wants to install something and is only interested in where to get it, not whether the dozen installed packages are really needed or whether they touch Core components or why the package is not included by default. User's judgement comes later, however. If the installed software fails or if the system is messed up (e.g. blocking yum install/update), this is bad press for Fedora. Yes, for Fedora in general, even when it is due to some software which is not available in the default Fedora package universe. It doesn't help to tell the user "you shouldn't have installed this and that" or "you should have downloaded it elsewhere", because this advice comes too late and should have been found in an obvious place. And please don't forget that more experienced users work around problems (and even downgrade rpms) much more quickly than the time it would take to report a problem with fear that it is NOTABUG, WORKSFORME, DUPLICATE. From bugs.michael at gmx.net Thu Oct 19 10:34:36 2006 From: bugs.michael at gmx.net (Michael Schwendt) Date: Thu, 19 Oct 2006 12:34:36 +0200 Subject: pth In-Reply-To: References: <200610151852.k9FIqxUN018347@bugzilla.redhat.com> <200610181202.07509.jkeating@redhat.com> <200610181343.33172.jkeating@redhat.com> Message-ID: <20061019123436.72efb6e9.bugs.michael@gmx.net> On Wed, 18 Oct 2006 17:20:58 -0700, Christopher Stone wrote: > Just FYI, > > I have filed over 110+ bugs against ATrpms for conflicts against FC/FE > repositories. The tracker bug is here: > > http://bugzilla.atrpms.net/show_bug.cgi?id=1028 > > Let's hope some good becomes of this. I've taken a look at http://dl.atrpms.net/all/pth.spec and see no added value compared with the package in Extras other than that it's 2.0.7 instead of 2.0.6. v2.0.7 contains only an unneeded upgrade of the build tools, an updated year in copyright strings, and no changes in the code. So, it's the typical "if 2.0.6 built fine, why upgrade?" case. At the spec level, I see %configure enables several options which are the default already. Apart from that, the spec file is obfuscated with a non-Fedora macro %lib_dependencies, which seem to hide important packaging details (e.g. the %files list is truncated and doesn't include shared libs or a -devel package, most likely because that is done outside the spec in custom macros). From nicolas.mailhot at laposte.net Thu Oct 19 11:18:39 2006 From: nicolas.mailhot at laposte.net (Nicolas Mailhot) Date: Thu, 19 Oct 2006 13:18:39 +0200 (CEST) Subject: yum RFE In-Reply-To: <1161242730.10376.2.camel@metropolis.intra.city-fan.org> References: <200610151852.k9FIqxUN018347@bugzilla.redhat.com> <45364F01.5040507@math.unl.edu> <200610181221.02823.jkeating@redhat.com> <1161193129.2975.13.camel@zod.rchland.ibm.com> <1161208352.2913.82.camel@localhost> <1161239617.5169.14.camel@rousalka.dyndns.org> <1161242730.10376.2.camel@metropolis.intra.city-fan.org> Message-ID: <18337.192.54.193.51.1161256719.squirrel@rousalka.dyndns.org> Le Jeu 19 octobre 2006 09:25, Paul Howarth a ?crit : > On Thu, 2006-10-19 at 08:33 +0200, Nicolas Mailhot wrote: >> lso, protectbase is far from being as restrictive as it could. >> Typically users go to third party-repositories for one or two specific >> needs, and then pull all sorts of unrelated packages because declaring a >> repo exposes all its contents. A very useful yum restriction would be to >> allow a repo only for a specific package list (pulling dependencies as >> needed from the same repo, provided they can't be satisfied by a more >> trusted one). > > This is already do-able using "includepkgs=" in the repo file, isn't it? This does not take care of deps nor repo priorization -- Nicolas Mailhot From Axel.Thimm at ATrpms.net Thu Oct 19 11:36:26 2006 From: Axel.Thimm at ATrpms.net (Axel Thimm) Date: Thu, 19 Oct 2006 13:36:26 +0200 Subject: Apology to Axel and Lists In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20061019113626.GC9514@neu.nirvana> Thanks, Christopher, for ending this. To lighten our moods we can start looking forward to FC6. -- Axel.Thimm at ATrpms.net -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 189 bytes Desc: not available URL: From j.w.r.degoede at hhs.nl Thu Oct 19 11:58:30 2006 From: j.w.r.degoede at hhs.nl (Hans de Goede) Date: Thu, 19 Oct 2006 13:58:30 +0200 Subject: Apology to Axel and Lists In-Reply-To: <20061019113626.GC9514@neu.nirvana> References: <20061019113626.GC9514@neu.nirvana> Message-ID: <45376866.7010507@hhs.nl> Axel Thimm wrote: > Thanks, Christopher, for ending this. To lighten our moods we can > start looking forward to FC6. > Hooray for Axel and Chris (or Chris and Axel) for ending this! Now with that said. Axel I do hope you take a serious look at the questions Chris filed through bugzilla, I know they are not really bug reports but they are valid questions to ask and I think bugzilla is a good way to track them. Also with the help offered by others to take a look at this, I think most differences between FE and atrpms can be resolved, for example I've already received a useful bugreport against aalib to enhance it with ncurses support, once that is done the 2 packages are identical and hopefully the atrpms package can be dropped. Assuming that atrpms for newer Fedora Releases is intended as a repo to be used in conjunction with FC+FE and not just FC. Thanks & Regards, Hans From jkeating at redhat.com Thu Oct 19 12:56:17 2006 From: jkeating at redhat.com (Jesse Keating) Date: Thu, 19 Oct 2006 08:56:17 -0400 Subject: Fedora Core 6 has gone gold... Message-ID: <200610190856.17735.jkeating@redhat.com> And will be released on Tuesday the 24th 10:00am EDT (1400UTC). On release day we'll enable FC6 updates to go out, and make development compose from our dist-fc7 collection. I'm sure it'll break in a hurry (: -- Jesse Keating Release Engineer: Fedora -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 189 bytes Desc: not available URL: From lists at timj.co.uk Thu Oct 19 13:02:12 2006 From: lists at timj.co.uk (Tim Jackson) Date: Thu, 19 Oct 2006 14:02:12 +0100 Subject: Agressive FUD by Fedora contributor In-Reply-To: References: <200610151759.k9FHxe5W016619@bugzilla.redhat.com> <1160951328.30731.3.camel@cutter> <20061015223725.GG8727@neu.nirvana> <1160952184.30731.9.camel@cutter> <20061015230900.GI8727@neu.nirvana> <20061015235310.GL8727@neu.nirvana> <20061016082800.GP8727@neu.nirvana> Message-ID: <45377754.4060908@timj.co.uk> Christopher Stone wrote: > You should not replace core packages in your repository. Instead you > should file bug reports against the packages in FC/FE which you need > to replace in order to fix them so they don't need to be replaced. If > there is *anybody* on this mailing list that disagrees with this > statement, please speak up. I doubt anyone will. Actually, I have an issue with this, at least with the way you're expressing it (actually, my personal preferences and policies appear to be broadly aligned with yours). Indeed, what you say is probably the "best" solution, and promoting it is good. I don't (directly) use ATrpms myself, out of personal choice and for various reasons including some of the ones you cited. HOWEVER, a) Axel has contributed an awful lot to the community by providing a lot of useful packages; even though I don't have AT in my repos.d, I have found a number of his packages/specs useful over time. He is also an Extras contributor. Thus I don't think the strength of anti-Axel comment here is justified. Let's not make this personal. (NB ATrpms = Axel = personal) b) I don't think that any of us have the right to dictate what someone does or doesn't maintain on their privately-managed website. If Axel wants to build packages that conflict with Fedora for whatever reason (right or wrong) then that's his prerogative. Nobody else has to use them if they don't want. If there's misunderstanding amongst users about the policies of that website then that's a different issue. c) in the general sense (I am not getting into discussions of specifics here or whether these apply to AT or not) there are sometimes valid reasons for repos to override core stuff which don't fall into the category of "core bugs". These include amongst others: i) personal/private situations (custom things) ii) special interests e.g. music/realtime/embedded (e.g. PlanetCCRMA) iii) experimentation/proof of concept/development etc. iv) legal (of course, plugin architecture is best, but that's not *always* possible) I suppose in summary I would say that there are a number of valid points here: * it would be great in theory IF the overlap between AT/other repos and FC/FE could be reduced. I think good progress has been made: personally I find that FC+FE+Livna covers most of my needs. I think Axel wants the same, otherwise he wouldn't be an FE contributor. However due to differing needs both technically, legally and policy-wise I don't think there will ever be a perfect situation. And no matter how much progress we make, if people want to run their own repositories with their own packages that override and conflict with Core, then well, that's their choice. Let the users choose whether they want that or not. * it is good that users should be conscious about the sources of the software that they install, and understand the implications. * if people are using repos that override core packages, it's good that they are clear about this and understand it. * your comments are based on some kind of concept of "production systems". I think everyone understands that concept, but exactly what it means in practice differs between people and situations. I have different policies towards repo usage on my home desktop machine to my personal server, to my office workstation and company servers. Horses for courses, so to speak. However, none of these mean that we have a right to tell people like Axel (or anyone else) what they should and shouldn't do with their own personal projects. By all means, in a spirit of co-operation, we can say "Please would you make it abundantly clear that your repo overrides core packages, and this makes it difficult for users to get support because they're not really running 'Fedora' any more" or "Hey, let's work together to get as much as possible into Core/Extras to reduce the need for third-party repos". But let's not dictate to people or be over-critical. Their life, their time, their choice. I'm pretty sure we're all on the same side here and we want to encourage people to get involved and work towards a common goal, not drive them away. Tim From meme at daughtersoftiresias.org Thu Oct 19 15:19:03 2006 From: meme at daughtersoftiresias.org (Karen Pease) Date: Thu, 19 Oct 2006 10:19:03 -0500 Subject: Agressive FUD by Fedora contributor In-Reply-To: <45377754.4060908@timj.co.uk> References: <200610151759.k9FHxe5W016619@bugzilla.redhat.com> <45377754.4060908@timj.co.uk> Message-ID: <200610191019.03772.meme@daughtersoftiresias.org> Amen. Enough with the "ATrpms breaks your system" stuff that we're stil* getting on this list. I've used ATrpms for a long time, and never once had a problem. Let's get through the Bugzilla list as quickly as possible so as not to spam Axel's system, figure out what's obsolete or what we can improve in Extras to make obsolete, and if ATrpms pulls those obsolete packages, I think we have no cause for complaint about what's left, even if it overrides a Fedora package (because it would obviously mean that it's being overridden for a reason). Is there really any more that needs to be said that, apart for on the individual package bugzilla threads? If not, we can close this thread once and for all. - Karen On Thursday 19 October 2006 08:02 am, Tim Jackson wrote: > Christopher Stone wrote: > > You should not replace core packages in your repository. Instead you > > should file bug reports against the packages in FC/FE which you need > > to replace in order to fix them so they don't need to be replaced. If > > there is *anybody* on this mailing list that disagrees with this > > statement, please speak up. I doubt anyone will. > > Actually, I have an issue with this, at least with the way you're > expressing it (actually, my personal preferences and policies appear to > be broadly aligned with yours). Indeed, what you say is probably the > "best" solution, and promoting it is good. I don't (directly) use ATrpms > myself, out of personal choice and for various reasons including some of > the ones you cited. > > HOWEVER, > > a) Axel has contributed an awful lot to the community by providing a lot > of useful packages; even though I don't have AT in my repos.d, I have > found a number of his packages/specs useful over time. He is also an > Extras contributor. Thus I don't think the strength of anti-Axel comment > here is justified. Let's not make this personal. (NB ATrpms = Axel = > personal) > > b) I don't think that any of us have the right to dictate what someone > does or doesn't maintain on their privately-managed website. If Axel > wants to build packages that conflict with Fedora for whatever reason > (right or wrong) then that's his prerogative. Nobody else has to use > them if they don't want. If there's misunderstanding amongst users about > the policies of that website then that's a different issue. > > c) in the general sense (I am not getting into discussions of specifics > here or whether these apply to AT or not) there are sometimes valid > reasons for repos to override core stuff which don't fall into the > category of "core bugs". These include amongst others: > > i) personal/private situations (custom things) > ii) special interests e.g. music/realtime/embedded (e.g. PlanetCCRMA) > iii) experimentation/proof of concept/development etc. > iv) legal (of course, plugin architecture is best, but that's not > *always* possible) > > I suppose in summary I would say that there are a number of valid points > here: > > * it would be great in theory IF the overlap between AT/other repos and > FC/FE could be reduced. I think good progress has been made: > personally I find that FC+FE+Livna covers most of my needs. I > think Axel wants the same, otherwise he wouldn't be an FE contributor. > However due to differing needs both technically, legally and > policy-wise I don't think there will ever be a perfect situation. And > no matter how much progress we make, if people want to run their own > repositories with their own packages that override and conflict with > Core, then well, that's their choice. Let the users choose whether > they want that or not. > > * it is good that users should be conscious about the sources of the > software that they install, and understand the implications. > > * if people are using repos that override core packages, it's good that > they are clear about this and understand it. > > * your comments are based on some kind of concept of "production > systems". I think everyone understands that concept, but exactly what > it means in practice differs between people and situations. I have > different policies towards repo usage on my home desktop machine to my > personal server, to my office workstation and company servers. Horses > for courses, so to speak. > > However, none of these mean that we have a right to tell people like > Axel (or anyone else) what they should and shouldn't do with their own > personal projects. By all means, in a spirit of co-operation, we can say > "Please would you make it abundantly clear that your repo overrides core > packages, and this makes it difficult for users to get support because > they're not really running 'Fedora' any more" or "Hey, let's work > together to get as much as possible into Core/Extras to reduce the need > for third-party repos". But let's not dictate to people or be > over-critical. Their life, their time, their choice. I'm pretty sure > we're all on the same side here and we want to encourage people to get > involved and work towards a common goal, not drive them away. > > > Tim > > -- > Fedora-maintainers mailing list > Fedora-maintainers at redhat.com > https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-maintainers From dennis at ausil.us Fri Oct 20 03:19:37 2006 From: dennis at ausil.us (Dennis Gilmore) Date: Thu, 19 Oct 2006 22:19:37 -0500 Subject: Buildsys Downtime Message-ID: <200610192219.38921.dennis@ausil.us> On Monday October 23 at 10am EST cvs write access and the extras build system will be disabled. this will allow for CVS to be branched for fc6 and for the buildsys to have fc6 configs deployed. Downtime will be approximately 3 hours. Ill send a notification before it goes down and again when its back up Your understanding and paitence is appreciated. -- Dennis Gilmore, RHCE Proud Australian From dledford at redhat.com Sat Oct 21 00:22:53 2006 From: dledford at redhat.com (Doug Ledford) Date: Fri, 20 Oct 2006 20:22:53 -0400 Subject: yum RFE In-Reply-To: <200610181221.02823.jkeating@redhat.com> References: <200610151852.k9FIqxUN018347@bugzilla.redhat.com> <45364F01.5040507@math.unl.edu> <200610181221.02823.jkeating@redhat.com> Message-ID: <1161390173.2917.629.camel@fc6.xsintricity.com> On Wed, 2006-10-18 at 12:20 -0400, Jesse Keating wrote: > Unknowing and unsuspecting users will become frightening and confused when the > repo they added doesn't work like the rest of the repos they have. Unknowing and unsuspecting users are frightening long before they become confused. -- Doug Ledford GPG KeyID: CFBFF194 http://people.redhat.com/dledford Infiniband specific RPMs available at http://people.redhat.com/dledford/Infiniband -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 189 bytes Desc: This is a digitally signed message part URL: From jkeating at redhat.com Sun Oct 22 00:04:55 2006 From: jkeating at redhat.com (Jesse Keating) Date: Sat, 21 Oct 2006 17:04:55 -0700 Subject: Fedora Core 6 release date slip Message-ID: <001801c6f56d$b4b4b560$c701a8c0@OEMSBSDN5352.local> We regret to announce a slip of the Fedora Core 6 release schedule. A few issues are still present that we would like to see fixed before we release. - Possible ext3 corruption bug - Installs with 256megs of ram stall - Package ordering issues on multilib platforms (x86_64, ppc64) - SELinux issue with updating kernels on ppc platforms - iscsi based installations not functional There are obviously other issues and bugs still open, but these are the ones that are really "blocking" the release. To give enough time to fix these issues, we've extended the release date 6 days to Tuesday, Oct 17th. Freezes are still in place (even more so now). Your extra careful testing of rawhide over the next few days would greatly be appreciated. Keep an eye on http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Core/Schedule for any changes. -- Jesse Keating Release Engineer: Fedora -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 189 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- -- fedora-announce-list mailing list fedora-announce-list at redhat.com https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-announce-list From jkeating at redhat.com Sun Oct 22 02:51:42 2006 From: jkeating at redhat.com (Jesse Keating) Date: Sat, 21 Oct 2006 22:51:42 -0400 Subject: Fedora Core 6 release date slip In-Reply-To: <001801c6f56d$b4b4b560$c701a8c0@OEMSBSDN5352.local> References: <001801c6f56d$b4b4b560$c701a8c0@OEMSBSDN5352.local> Message-ID: <200610212251.47208.jkeating@redhat.com> On Saturday 21 October 2006 20:04, Jesse Keating wrote: > We regret to announce a slip of the Fedora Core 6 release schedule. Ugh, looks like mailman puked up a set of messages from me regarding the slip. It even managed to invalidate the gpg signing of it. Awesome. No, there is no more slip, yes the 24th is _the_ date. We've reached the point of no return. -- Jesse Keating Release Engineer: Fedora -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 189 bytes Desc: not available URL: From dennis at ausil.us Mon Oct 23 21:12:56 2006 From: dennis at ausil.us (Dennis Gilmore) Date: Mon, 23 Oct 2006 16:12:56 -0500 Subject: Buildsys Downtime In-Reply-To: <200610192219.38921.dennis@ausil.us> References: <200610192219.38921.dennis@ausil.us> Message-ID: <200610231612.56632.dennis@ausil.us> On Thursday 19 October 2006 22:19, Dennis Gilmore wrote: > On Monday October 23 at 10am EST cvs write access and the extras build > system will be disabled. this will allow for CVS to be branched for fc6 > and for the buildsys to have fc6 configs deployed. > > Downtime will be approximately 3 hours. > Ill send a notification before it goes down and again when its back up > > Your understanding and paitence is appreciated. Hi all, Thanks to the hard work of Jeremys cvs foo. we now have FC-6 branches in extras cvs and a the build targets to boot. so please do a cvs update -d on all your packages and go to work on making FC7 better Oh and the buildsys and cvs are back up and functional :) -- Dennis Gilmore, RHCE Proud Australian From peter at thecodergeek.com Tue Oct 24 03:43:28 2006 From: peter at thecodergeek.com (Peter Gordon) Date: Mon, 23 Oct 2006 20:43:28 -0700 Subject: Mass Rebuild? [Was: Re: Buildsys Downtime] In-Reply-To: <200610231612.56632.dennis@ausil.us> References: <200610192219.38921.dennis@ausil.us> <200610231612.56632.dennis@ausil.us> Message-ID: <453D8BE0.4090308@thecodergeek.com> Dennis Gilmore wrote: > so please do a cvs update -d on all your packages and go to work on making FC7 > better Awesome. Does this mean that we should EVR-bump our packages on the devel branch and enqueue those builds to pick up the FC7 dist tag and whatnot? Thanks. -- Peter Gordon (codergeek42) GnuPG Public Key ID: 0xFFC19479 / Fingerprint: DD68 A414 56BD 6368 D957 9666 4268 CB7A FFC1 9479 My Blog: http://thecodergeek.com/blog/ -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 251 bytes Desc: OpenPGP digital signature URL: From jkeating at redhat.com Tue Oct 24 03:44:54 2006 From: jkeating at redhat.com (Jesse Keating) Date: Mon, 23 Oct 2006 23:44:54 -0400 Subject: Mass Rebuild? [Was: Re: Buildsys Downtime] In-Reply-To: <453D8BE0.4090308@thecodergeek.com> References: <200610192219.38921.dennis@ausil.us> <200610231612.56632.dennis@ausil.us> <453D8BE0.4090308@thecodergeek.com> Message-ID: <200610232344.54333.jkeating@redhat.com> On Monday 23 October 2006 23:43, Peter Gordon wrote: > Awesome. Does this mean that we should EVR-bump our packages on the devel > branch and enqueue those builds to pick up the FC7 dist tag and whatnot? Should only be necessary if you're changing something in the package. Spurious rebuilds for no reason should be avoided. -- Jesse Keating Release Engineer: Fedora -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 189 bytes Desc: not available URL: From peter at thecodergeek.com Tue Oct 24 03:47:45 2006 From: peter at thecodergeek.com (Peter Gordon) Date: Mon, 23 Oct 2006 20:47:45 -0700 Subject: Mass Rebuild? [Was: Re: Buildsys Downtime] In-Reply-To: <200610232344.54333.jkeating@redhat.com> References: <200610192219.38921.dennis@ausil.us> <200610231612.56632.dennis@ausil.us> <453D8BE0.4090308@thecodergeek.com> <200610232344.54333.jkeating@redhat.com> Message-ID: <453D8CE1.20102@thecodergeek.com> Jesse Keating wrote: > On Monday 23 October 2006 23:43, Peter Gordon wrote: >> Awesome. Does this mean that we should EVR-bump our packages on the devel >> branch and enqueue those builds to pick up the FC7 dist tag and whatnot? > > Should only be necessary if you're changing something in the package. > Spurious rebuilds for no reason should be avoided. Great. Thanks for the clarification, Jesse. :) -- Peter Gordon (codergeek42) GnuPG Public Key ID: 0xFFC19479 / Fingerprint: DD68 A414 56BD 6368 D957 9666 4268 CB7A FFC1 9479 My Blog: http://thecodergeek.com/blog/ -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 251 bytes Desc: OpenPGP digital signature URL: From dennis at ausil.us Tue Oct 24 18:18:12 2006 From: dennis at ausil.us (Dennis Gilmore) Date: Tue, 24 Oct 2006 13:18:12 -0500 Subject: Buildsys Outage Message-ID: <200610241318.13034.dennis@ausil.us> Hi All, Sorry for the inconvenience but the buildsys is temporarily down while things settle down with the release of FC-6 Your patience is appreciated. -- Dennis Gilmore, RHCE Proud Australian From dennis at ausil.us Tue Oct 24 21:06:04 2006 From: dennis at ausil.us (Dennis Gilmore) Date: Tue, 24 Oct 2006 16:06:04 -0500 Subject: Buildsys Outage In-Reply-To: <200610241318.13034.dennis@ausil.us> References: <200610241318.13034.dennis@ausil.us> Message-ID: <200610241606.04968.dennis@ausil.us> On Tuesday 24 October 2006 13:18, Dennis Gilmore wrote: > Hi All, > > Sorry for the inconvenience but the buildsys is temporarily down while > things settle down with the release of FC-6 > > Your patience is appreciated. Hi All, The buildsys in now back online Please mail the list if you experience any issues. -- Dennis Gilmore, RHCE Proud Australian From mattdm at mattdm.org Wed Oct 25 00:24:18 2006 From: mattdm at mattdm.org (Matthew Miller) Date: Tue, 24 Oct 2006 20:24:18 -0400 Subject: had new kid. will be scarce. Message-ID: <20061025002418.GA18853@jadzia.bu.edu> Not that I've had much time to spare, but now I have even less. :) I wasn't there to do the 10:00am release bitflip, and I missed a step in the script I hastily set up before leaving for the hospital. Paul Stauffer and Pam Andrews had to scramble to figure out what was missing so fedora.bu.edu was a few minutes late in going live with FC6. I hope you all can forgive me. :) -- Matthew Miller mattdm at mattdm.org Boston University Linux ------> From tcallawa at redhat.com Wed Oct 25 02:04:08 2006 From: tcallawa at redhat.com (Tom 'spot' Callaway) Date: Tue, 24 Oct 2006 21:04:08 -0500 Subject: had new kid. will be scarce. In-Reply-To: <20061025002418.GA18853@jadzia.bu.edu> References: <20061025002418.GA18853@jadzia.bu.edu> Message-ID: <1161741848.2909.514.camel@localhost.localdomain> On Tue, 2006-10-24 at 20:24 -0400, Matthew Miller wrote: > Not that I've had much time to spare, but now I have even less. :) > > > I wasn't there to do the 10:00am release bitflip, and I missed a step in the > script I hastily set up before leaving for the hospital. Paul Stauffer and > Pam Andrews had to scramble to figure out what was missing so fedora.bu.edu > was a few minutes late in going live with FC6. I hope you all can forgive > me. :) Congrats! Did you name the kid Zod? ;) ~spot -- Tom "spot" Callaway || Red Hat || Fedora || Aurora || GPG ID: 93054260 "We must not confuse dissent with disloyalty. We must remember always that accusation is not proof and that conviction depends upon evidence and due process of law. We will not walk in fear, one of another. We will not be driven by fear into an age of unreason, if we dig deep in our history and our doctrine, and remember that we are not descended from fearful men -- not from men who feared to write, to speak, to associate and to defend causes that were, for the moment, unpopular." -- Edward R. Murrow, March 9, 1954 From rc040203 at freenet.de Wed Oct 25 03:07:49 2006 From: rc040203 at freenet.de (Ralf Corsepius) Date: Wed, 25 Oct 2006 05:07:49 +0200 Subject: mirrorlists Message-ID: <1161745670.20051.35.camel@mccallum.corsepiu.local> Hi, Somebody seems to have killed the mirrorlists: http://fedora.redhat.com/download/mirrors/updates-released-fc5 returns: ... Fedora Core 6 We are working hard to bring fedora.redhat.com back up to its fully operational state. Until then, please visit our BitTorrent tracker or list of mirrors if you are trying to download Fedora Core 6. ... The URL above is the default for yum on FC5 ... Ralf From skvidal at linux.duke.edu Wed Oct 25 03:18:39 2006 From: skvidal at linux.duke.edu (seth vidal) Date: Tue, 24 Oct 2006 23:18:39 -0400 Subject: mirrorlists In-Reply-To: <1161745670.20051.35.camel@mccallum.corsepiu.local> References: <1161745670.20051.35.camel@mccallum.corsepiu.local> Message-ID: <1161746319.12988.65.camel@cutter> On Wed, 2006-10-25 at 05:07 +0200, Ralf Corsepius wrote: > Hi, > > Somebody seems to have killed the mirrorlists: > > http://fedora.redhat.com/download/mirrors/updates-released-fc5 > > returns: > ... > Fedora Core 6 > We are working hard to bring fedora.redhat.com back up to its fully > operational state. > > Until then, please visit our BitTorrent tracker or list of mirrors if > you are trying to download Fedora Core 6. > ... > > The URL above is the default for yum on FC5 ... > We know. There's not much we can do about it. Tell affected users to replace http://fedora.redhat.com/download/mirrors/updates-released-fc5 with either: http://fedoraproject.org/mirrors/updates-released-fc5 or http://mirrors.fedoraproject.org/mirrorlist?repo=updates-released-fc $releasever&arch=$basearch that's the best I've got for the moment. -sv From rc040203 at freenet.de Wed Oct 25 03:33:31 2006 From: rc040203 at freenet.de (Ralf Corsepius) Date: Wed, 25 Oct 2006 05:33:31 +0200 Subject: mirrorlists In-Reply-To: <1161746319.12988.65.camel@cutter> References: <1161745670.20051.35.camel@mccallum.corsepiu.local> <1161746319.12988.65.camel@cutter> Message-ID: <1161747211.31363.1.camel@mccallum.corsepiu.local> On Tue, 2006-10-24 at 23:18 -0400, seth vidal wrote: > On Wed, 2006-10-25 at 05:07 +0200, Ralf Corsepius wrote: > > Hi, > > > > Somebody seems to have killed the mirrorlists: > > > > http://fedora.redhat.com/download/mirrors/updates-released-fc5 > > > > returns: > > ... > > Fedora Core 6 > > We are working hard to bring fedora.redhat.com back up to its fully > > operational state. > > > > Until then, please visit our BitTorrent tracker or list of mirrors if > > you are trying to download Fedora Core 6. > > ... > > > > The URL above is the default for yum on FC5 ... > > > > We know. There's not much we can do about it. > > Tell affected users to replace > http://fedora.redhat.com/download/mirrors/updates-released-fc5 > with either: > http://fedoraproject.org/mirrors/updates-released-fc5 > or > http://mirrors.fedoraproject.org/mirrorlist?repo=updates-released-fc > $releasever&arch=$basearch > > that's the best I've got for the moment. Well, you didn't mention the cause - Am I correct in presuming this to be a temporary failure or is it a permanent URL change? Ralf From jspaleta at gmail.com Wed Oct 25 03:38:34 2006 From: jspaleta at gmail.com (Jeff Spaleta) Date: Tue, 24 Oct 2006 19:38:34 -0800 Subject: mirrorlists In-Reply-To: <1161746319.12988.65.camel@cutter> References: <1161745670.20051.35.camel@mccallum.corsepiu.local> <1161746319.12988.65.camel@cutter> Message-ID: <604aa7910610242038l4ebcd69h90bac36a7b56c755@mail.gmail.com> On 10/24/06, seth vidal wrote: > Tell affected users to replace > http://fedora.redhat.com/download/mirrors/updates-released-fc5 > with either: > http://fedoraproject.org/mirrors/updates-released-fc5 > or > http://mirrors.fedoraproject.org/mirrorlist?repo=updates-released-fc > $releasever&arch=$basearch > syntax correction for those playing along. [core] mirrorlist=http://mirrors.fedoraproject.org/mirrorlist?repo=core-$releasever&arch=$basearch [extras] mirrorlist=http://mirrors.fedoraproject.org/mirrorlist?repo=extras-$releasever&arch=$basearch [updates] mirrorlist=http://mirrors.fedoraproject.org/mirrorlist?repo=updates-released-$releasever&arch=$basearch [updates-testing] mirrorlist=http://mirrors.fedoraproject.org/mirrorlist?repo=updates-testing-$releasever&arch=$basearch I've made each of the changes above and they work. -jef From skvidal at linux.duke.edu Wed Oct 25 03:40:14 2006 From: skvidal at linux.duke.edu (seth vidal) Date: Tue, 24 Oct 2006 23:40:14 -0400 Subject: mirrorlists In-Reply-To: <1161747211.31363.1.camel@mccallum.corsepiu.local> References: <1161745670.20051.35.camel@mccallum.corsepiu.local> <1161746319.12988.65.camel@cutter> <1161747211.31363.1.camel@mccallum.corsepiu.local> Message-ID: <1161747614.12988.84.camel@cutter> On Wed, 2006-10-25 at 05:33 +0200, Ralf Corsepius wrote: > On Tue, 2006-10-24 at 23:18 -0400, seth vidal wrote: > > On Wed, 2006-10-25 at 05:07 +0200, Ralf Corsepius wrote: > > > Hi, > > > > > > Somebody seems to have killed the mirrorlists: > > > > > > http://fedora.redhat.com/download/mirrors/updates-released-fc5 > > > > > > returns: > > > ... > > > Fedora Core 6 > > > We are working hard to bring fedora.redhat.com back up to its fully > > > operational state. > > > > > > Until then, please visit our BitTorrent tracker or list of mirrors if > > > you are trying to download Fedora Core 6. > > > ... > > > > > > The URL above is the default for yum on FC5 ... > > > > > > > We know. There's not much we can do about it. > > > > Tell affected users to replace > > http://fedora.redhat.com/download/mirrors/updates-released-fc5 > > with either: > > http://fedoraproject.org/mirrors/updates-released-fc5 > > or > > http://mirrors.fedoraproject.org/mirrorlist?repo=updates-released-fc > > $releasever&arch=$basearch > > > > that's the best I've got for the moment. > > Well, you didn't mention the cause - Am I correct in presuming this to > be a temporary failure or is it a permanent URL change? the cause is a massive overload of systems today due to what appears to be both the FC6 release traffic and a DoS against redhat.com -sv From giallu at gmail.com Wed Oct 25 06:57:42 2006 From: giallu at gmail.com (Gianluca Sforna) Date: Wed, 25 Oct 2006 08:57:42 +0200 Subject: had new kid. will be scarce. In-Reply-To: <1161741848.2909.514.camel@localhost.localdomain> References: <20061025002418.GA18853@jadzia.bu.edu> <1161741848.2909.514.camel@localhost.localdomain> Message-ID: On 10/25/06, Tom 'spot' Callaway wrote: > > I wasn't there to do the 10:00am release bitflip, and I missed a step in the > > script I hastily set up before leaving for the hospital. Paul Stauffer and > > Pam Andrews had to scramble to figure out what was missing so fedora.bu.edu > > was a few minutes late in going live with FC6. I hope you all can forgive > > me. :) > > Congrats! Did you name the kid Zod? ;) Otherwise, Zod will be _really_ upset... From bnocera at redhat.com Wed Oct 25 09:06:15 2006 From: bnocera at redhat.com (Bastien Nocera) Date: Wed, 25 Oct 2006 10:06:15 +0100 Subject: Fedora and Games (Was YUM RFE) In-Reply-To: <453686E6.9090604@hhs.nl> References: <200610151852.k9FIqxUN018347@bugzilla.redhat.com> <200610181341.03027.jkeating@redhat.com> <200610181354.21176.meme@daughtersoftiresias.org> <453686E6.9090604@hhs.nl> Message-ID: <1161767175.16300.21.camel@cookie.hadess.net> On Wed, 2006-10-18 at 21:56 +0200, Hans de Goede wrote: > Second about the others if they meet the FE license demands, why haven't > you filed an RFE, please add any OSS games you want here: > http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Extras/WishList Maybe I'm doing something utterly stupid, but I can't edit a single one of the Wiki page on fedoraproject.org... (Wanted to add gnome-launch-box to the list). -- Bastien Nocera Red Hat From sundaram at fedoraproject.org Wed Oct 25 09:18:10 2006 From: sundaram at fedoraproject.org (Rahul Sundaram) Date: Wed, 25 Oct 2006 14:48:10 +0530 Subject: Fedora and Games (Was YUM RFE) In-Reply-To: <1161767175.16300.21.camel@cookie.hadess.net> References: <200610151852.k9FIqxUN018347@bugzilla.redhat.com> <200610181341.03027.jkeating@redhat.com> <200610181354.21176.meme@daughtersoftiresias.org> <453686E6.9090604@hhs.nl> <1161767175.16300.21.camel@cookie.hadess.net> Message-ID: <453F2BD2.6070307@fedoraproject.org> Bastien Nocera wrote: > On Wed, 2006-10-18 at 21:56 +0200, Hans de Goede wrote: > >> Second about the others if they meet the FE license demands, why haven't >> you filed an RFE, please add any OSS games you want here: >> http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Extras/WishList > > Maybe I'm doing something utterly stupid, but I can't edit a single one > of the Wiki page on fedoraproject.org... (Wanted to add gnome-launch-box > to the list). I have added that package. You need to be in the edit group. http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/WikiEditing Rahul From bnocera at redhat.com Wed Oct 25 10:19:52 2006 From: bnocera at redhat.com (Bastien Nocera) Date: Wed, 25 Oct 2006 11:19:52 +0100 Subject: Fedora and Games (Was YUM RFE) In-Reply-To: <453F2BD2.6070307@fedoraproject.org> References: <200610151852.k9FIqxUN018347@bugzilla.redhat.com> <200610181341.03027.jkeating@redhat.com> <200610181354.21176.meme@daughtersoftiresias.org> <453686E6.9090604@hhs.nl> <1161767175.16300.21.camel@cookie.hadess.net> <453F2BD2.6070307@fedoraproject.org> Message-ID: <1161771592.16300.24.camel@cookie.hadess.net> On Wed, 2006-10-25 at 14:48 +0530, Rahul Sundaram wrote: > Bastien Nocera wrote: > > On Wed, 2006-10-18 at 21:56 +0200, Hans de Goede wrote: > > > >> Second about the others if they meet the FE license demands, why haven't > >> you filed an RFE, please add any OSS games you want here: > >> http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Extras/WishList > > > > Maybe I'm doing something utterly stupid, but I can't edit a single one > > of the Wiki page on fedoraproject.org... (Wanted to add gnome-launch-box > > to the list). > > I have added that package. You need to be in the edit group. > > http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/WikiEditing Ha! That explains it. Well, I'm only missing the last bit. Will someone do me the honours? -- Bastien Nocera Red Hat From sundaram at fedoraproject.org Wed Oct 25 10:23:55 2006 From: sundaram at fedoraproject.org (Rahul Sundaram) Date: Wed, 25 Oct 2006 15:53:55 +0530 Subject: Fedora and Games (Was YUM RFE) In-Reply-To: <1161771592.16300.24.camel@cookie.hadess.net> References: <200610151852.k9FIqxUN018347@bugzilla.redhat.com> <200610181341.03027.jkeating@redhat.com> <200610181354.21176.meme@daughtersoftiresias.org> <453686E6.9090604@hhs.nl> <1161767175.16300.21.camel@cookie.hadess.net> <453F2BD2.6070307@fedoraproject.org> <1161771592.16300.24.camel@cookie.hadess.net> Message-ID: <453F3B3B.5060701@fedoraproject.org> Bastien Nocera wrote: > > Ha! That explains it. Well, I'm only missing the last bit. Will someone > do me the honours? Sure. Whats your Fedora Account name and wiki name? I need the wiki user name to be in FirstnameLastname format. Rahul From bugs.michael at gmx.net Wed Oct 25 12:27:21 2006 From: bugs.michael at gmx.net (Michael Schwendt) Date: Wed, 25 Oct 2006 14:27:21 +0200 Subject: Build-sys weirdness (was: Re: Fedora Extras Package Build Report 2006-10-24) In-Reply-To: <20061025141100.51bde19a.bugs.michael@gmx.net> References: <20061025004150.B50B815212E@buildsys.fedoraproject.org> <453EC8A2.9060300@ioa.s.u-tokyo.ac.jp> <20061025141100.51bde19a.bugs.michael@gmx.net> Message-ID: <20061025142721.f0926b53.bugs.michael@gmx.net> On Wed, 25 Oct 2006 14:11:00 +0200, Michael Schwendt wrote: > On Wed, 25 Oct 2006 11:14:58 +0900, Mamoru Tasaka wrote: > > > buildsys at fedoraproject.org wrote: > > > Packages built and released for Fedora Extras development: 21 > > > jd-1.8.0-0.2.beta061023.fc6 > > > > This is strange because the rpm I built for FE-devel is > > jd-1.8.0-0.2.beta061023.fc7, not .fc6. > > You forgot to "cvs up" your "common" directory. As a result, you've > submitted a .fc6 build request for development, resulting in _two_ (!) > src.rpms and .fc7 binary rpms: > > http://buildsys.fedoraproject.org/plague-results/fedora-development-extras/jd/1.8.0-0.2.beta061023.fc7/SRPM/ > > Rest assured, a few other packagers have run into the same trap. > > While the push script is smart in some areas, it doesn't expect more than > one src.rpm per build-job, because build-job results are stored in unique > sub-directories. > > I'm not sure yet how to work around that (adding EVR sorting and other > overhead sounds wrong to me). You know, we already prune old build results > from the needsign queue and only push the latest EVR. The easiest fix is: > > "Packagers, submit proper build-jobs!" I'm going to re-push the following build-job results for FE development after removing the .fc6 src.rpms manually: dnsmasq/2.34-2.fc7 eggdrop/1.6.18-4.fc7 gaim-gaym/0.96-3.2.289svn.fc7 highlight/2.4.8-1.fc7 imlib2/1.3.0-1.fc7 jd/1.8.0-0.2.beta061023.fc7 libburn/0.2.2-2.fc7 libopts/27.4-1.fc7 qstat/2.10-6.fc7 ren/1.0-11.fc7 testdisk/6.5-1.fc7 All have been submitted from out-of-date CVS working-copies, where "devel" was still ".fc6". This created two src.rpms, one .fc6, the other .fc7. ./dnsmasq/2.34-2.fc7/SRPM: total 536 drwxrwsr-x 2 root extras_signers 4096 Oct 24 12:37 . drwxrwsr-x 6 root extras_signers 4096 Oct 24 18:27 .. -rw-rw-r-- 1 root extras_signers 264311 Oct 24 12:37 dnsmasq-2.34-2.fc6.src.rpm -rw-rw-r-- 1 root extras_signers 264452 Oct 24 12:37 dnsmasq-2.34-2.fc7.src.rpm ./eggdrop/1.6.18-4.fc7/SRPM: total 2040 drwxrwsr-x 2 root extras_signers 4096 Oct 25 03:33 . drwxrwsr-x 6 root extras_signers 4096 Oct 25 03:33 .. -rw-rw-r-- 1 root extras_signers 1032898 Oct 25 03:33 eggdrop-1.6.18-4.fc6.src.rpm -rw-rw-r-- 1 root extras_signers 1033049 Oct 25 03:33 eggdrop-1.6.18-4.fc7.src.rpm ./gaim-gaym/0.96-3.2.289svn.fc7/SRPM: total 16160 drwxrwsr-x 2 root extras_signers 4096 Oct 24 21:12 . drwxrwsr-x 6 root extras_signers 4096 Oct 24 21:12 .. -rw-rw-r-- 1 root extras_signers 8257074 Oct 24 21:12 gaim-gaym-0.96-3.2.289svn.fc6.src.rpm -rw-rw-r-- 1 root extras_signers 8257153 Oct 24 21:12 gaim-gaym-0.96-3.2.289svn.fc7.src.rpm ./highlight/2.4.8-1.fc7/SRPM: total 728 drwxrwsr-x 2 root extras_signers 4096 Oct 24 13:39 . drwxrwsr-x 6 root extras_signers 4096 Oct 24 18:27 .. -rw-rw-r-- 1 root extras_signers 363221 Oct 24 13:39 highlight-2.4.8-1.fc6.src.rpm -rw-rw-r-- 1 root extras_signers 363267 Oct 24 13:39 highlight-2.4.8-1.fc7.src.rpm ./imlib2/1.3.0-1.fc7/SRPM: total 1896 drwxrwsr-x 2 root extras_signers 4096 Oct 25 03:10 . drwxrwsr-x 6 root extras_signers 4096 Oct 25 03:10 .. -rw-rw-r-- 1 root extras_signers 959825 Oct 25 03:10 imlib2-1.3.0-1.fc6.src.rpm -rw-rw-r-- 1 root extras_signers 959639 Oct 25 03:10 imlib2-1.3.0-1.fc7.src.rpm ./jd/1.8.0-0.2.beta061023.fc7/SRPM: total 648 drwxrwsr-x 2 root extras_signers 4096 Oct 24 11:57 . drwxrwsr-x 6 root extras_signers 4096 Oct 25 08:16 .. -rw-rw-r-- 1 root extras_signers 321664 Oct 24 11:57 jd-1.8.0-0.2.beta061023.fc6.src.rpm -rw-rw-r-- 1 root extras_signers 321877 Oct 24 11:57 jd-1.8.0-0.2.beta061023.fc7.src.rpm ./libburn/0.2.2-2.fc7/SRPM: total 960 drwxrwsr-x 2 root extras_signers 4096 Oct 23 18:03 . drwxrwsr-x 6 root extras_signers 4096 Oct 24 18:27 .. -rw-rw-r-- 1 root extras_signers 480495 Oct 23 18:03 libburn-0.2.2-2.fc6.src.rpm -rw-rw-r-- 1 root extras_signers 480512 Oct 23 18:03 libburn-0.2.2-2.fc7.src.rpm ./libopts/27.4-1.fc7/SRPM: total 840 drwxrwsr-x 2 root extras_signers 4096 Oct 23 17:25 . drwxrwsr-x 6 root extras_signers 4096 Oct 24 18:27 .. -rw-rw-r-- 1 root extras_signers 420631 Oct 23 17:25 libopts-27.4-1.fc6.src.rpm -rw-rw-r-- 1 root extras_signers 420637 Oct 23 17:25 libopts-27.4-1.fc7.src.rpm ./qstat/2.10-6.fc7/SRPM: total 480 drwxrwsr-x 2 root extras_signers 4096 Oct 25 04:07 . drwxrwsr-x 6 root extras_signers 4096 Oct 25 04:07 .. -rw-rw-r-- 1 root extras_signers 233800 Oct 25 04:07 qstat-2.10-6.fc6.src.rpm -rw-rw-r-- 1 root extras_signers 233704 Oct 25 04:07 qstat-2.10-6.fc7.src.rpm ./ren/1.0-11.fc7/SRPM: total 40 drwxrwsr-x 2 root extras_signers 4096 Oct 25 05:08 . drwxrwsr-x 6 root extras_signers 4096 Oct 25 05:08 .. -rw-rw-r-- 1 root extras_signers 14221 Oct 25 05:08 ren-1.0-11.fc6.src.rpm -rw-rw-r-- 1 root extras_signers 14195 Oct 25 05:08 ren-1.0-11.fc7.src.rpm ./testdisk/6.5-1.fc7/SRPM: total 1264 drwxrwsr-x 2 root extras_signers 4096 Oct 24 12:07 . drwxrwsr-x 6 root extras_signers 4096 Oct 24 18:27 .. -rw-rw-r-- 1 root extras_signers 635749 Oct 24 12:07 testdisk-6.5-1.fc6.src.rpm -rw-rw-r-- 1 root extras_signers 635753 Oct 24 12:07 testdisk-6.5-1.fc7.src.rpm From jima at beer.tclug.org Wed Oct 25 13:59:22 2006 From: jima at beer.tclug.org (Jima) Date: Wed, 25 Oct 2006 08:59:22 -0500 (CDT) Subject: had new kid. will be scarce. In-Reply-To: <20061025002418.GA18853@jadzia.bu.edu> References: <20061025002418.GA18853@jadzia.bu.edu> Message-ID: On Tue, 24 Oct 2006, Matthew Miller wrote: > Not that I've had much time to spare, but now I have even less. :) Congratulations! We'll see you when (if?) we see you. :) > I wasn't there to do the 10:00am release bitflip, and I missed a step in the > script I hastily set up before leaving for the hospital. Paul Stauffer and > Pam Andrews had to scramble to figure out what was missing so fedora.bu.edu > was a few minutes late in going live with FC6. I hope you all can forgive > me. :) I was using BitTorrent, so I can forgive you. Jima From bugs.michael at gmx.net Wed Oct 25 14:11:56 2006 From: bugs.michael at gmx.net (Michael Schwendt) Date: Wed, 25 Oct 2006 16:11:56 +0200 Subject: Attention, all FE packagers! In-Reply-To: <20061025135742.25210.58694@extras64.linux.duke.edu> References: <20061025135742.25210.58694@extras64.linux.duke.edu> Message-ID: <20061025161156.8130dec8.bugs.michael@gmx.net> On Wed, 25 Oct 2006 13:57:42 -0000, Fedora Extras repoclosure wrote: > New report for: imlinux AT gmail.com > > package: nagios-plugins-game - 1.4.4-1.fc7.ppc from fedora-extras-development-ppc > unresolved deps: > qstat Okay, this is due to another invalid build request. qstat must be rebuilt from a properly updated CVS tree. Also update "common". It just doesn't work like this and breaks the FE build-sys badly. Look! http://buildsys.fedoraproject.org/plague-results/fedora-development-extras/qstat/2.10-6.fc7/ppc/ It build .fc6 binaries for ppc, but .fc7 binaries for i386/x86_64: qstat-2.10-6.fc6.ppc.rpm qstat-debuginfo-2.10-6.fc6.ppc.rpm And two src.rpms: qstat-2.10-6.fc6.src.rpm qstat-2.10-6.fc7.src.rpm This is certainly now what you wanted. Note to all: As a more drastic measure, the push script now ignores such invalid build request from being published. If all works well, there will be a warning in the build report. From fedora at leemhuis.info Wed Oct 25 14:24:57 2006 From: fedora at leemhuis.info (Thorsten Leemhuis) Date: Wed, 25 Oct 2006 16:24:57 +0200 Subject: Attention, all FE packagers! In-Reply-To: <20061025161156.8130dec8.bugs.michael@gmx.net> References: <20061025135742.25210.58694@extras64.linux.duke.edu> <20061025161156.8130dec8.bugs.michael@gmx.net> Message-ID: <453F73B9.8050805@leemhuis.info> Hi! Michael Schwendt schrieb: > On Wed, 25 Oct 2006 13:57:42 -0000, Fedora Extras repoclosure wrote: > >> New report for: imlinux AT gmail.com >> package: nagios-plugins-game - 1.4.4-1.fc7.ppc from fedora-extras-development-ppc >> unresolved deps: >> qstat > > Okay, this is due to another invalid build request. > qstat must be rebuilt from a properly updated CVS tree. Also update > "common". > > It just doesn't work like this and breaks the FE build-sys badly. Look! [...] (and reply out of order here) > As a more drastic measure, the push script now ignores such invalid > build request from being published. If all works well, there will be > a warning in the build report. Thx for that heads-up Michael. And also many thanks for your great work on the push scripts -- it is much appreciated! One small detail nevertheless: > http://buildsys.fedoraproject.org/plague-results/fedora-development-extras/qstat/2.10-6.fc7/ppc/ > It build .fc6 binaries for ppc, but .fc7 binaries for i386/x86_64: The .fc6 binaries on ppc look like a mis-configuration on the ppc-builder to me. See http://buildsys.fedoraproject.org/logs/fedora-development-extras/20270-jack-audio-connection-kit-0.102.20-2.1.fc7/ppc/build.log tagged correctly, but: > Wrote: /builddir/build/RPMS/jack-audio-connection-kit-0.102.20-2.1.fc6.ppc.rpm > Wrote: /builddir/build/RPMS/jack-audio-connection-kit-devel-0.102.20-2.1.fc6.ppc.rpm > Wrote: /builddir/build/RPMS/jack-audio-connection-kit-example-clients-0.102.20-2.1.fc6.ppc.rpm > Wrote: /builddir/build/RPMS/jack-audio-connection-kit-debuginfo-0.102.20-2.1.fc6.ppc.rpm See also others like http://buildsys.fedoraproject.org/logs/fedora-development-extras/20268-yumex-1.1.7-1.0.fc7/noarch/build.log I'll poke dgilmore to fix it. CU thl From fedora at leemhuis.info Wed Oct 25 15:34:46 2006 From: fedora at leemhuis.info (Thorsten Leemhuis) Date: Wed, 25 Oct 2006 17:34:46 +0200 Subject: Attention, all FE packagers! In-Reply-To: <453F73B9.8050805@leemhuis.info> References: <20061025135742.25210.58694@extras64.linux.duke.edu> <20061025161156.8130dec8.bugs.michael@gmx.net> <453F73B9.8050805@leemhuis.info> Message-ID: <453F8416.5080105@leemhuis.info> Thorsten Leemhuis schrieb: > Michael Schwendt schrieb: > >> http://buildsys.fedoraproject.org/plague-results/fedora-development-extras/qstat/2.10-6.fc7/ppc/ >> It build .fc6 binaries for ppc, but .fc7 binaries for i386/x86_64: > The .fc6 binaries on ppc look like a mis-configuration on the > ppc-builder to me. See > [...] > I'll poke dgilmore to fix it. He and mmcgrath took a look and it should be fixed now. Cu thl From bugs.michael at gmx.net Wed Oct 25 23:38:42 2006 From: bugs.michael at gmx.net (Michael Schwendt) Date: Thu, 26 Oct 2006 01:38:42 +0200 Subject: Attention, all FE packagers! In-Reply-To: <453F8416.5080105@leemhuis.info> References: <20061025135742.25210.58694@extras64.linux.duke.edu> <20061025161156.8130dec8.bugs.michael@gmx.net> <453F73B9.8050805@leemhuis.info> <453F8416.5080105@leemhuis.info> Message-ID: <20061026013842.9a1bf349.bugs.michael@gmx.net> On Wed, 25 Oct 2006 17:34:46 +0200, Thorsten Leemhuis wrote: > Thorsten Leemhuis schrieb: > > Michael Schwendt schrieb: > > > >> http://buildsys.fedoraproject.org/plague-results/fedora-development-extras/qstat/2.10-6.fc7/ppc/ > >> It build .fc6 binaries for ppc, but .fc7 binaries for i386/x86_64: > > The .fc6 binaries on ppc look like a mis-configuration on the > > ppc-builder to me. See > > [...] > > I'll poke dgilmore to fix it. > > He and mmcgrath took a look and it should be fixed now. Not yet. Just 40 minutes ago, python-sexy built .fc6 rpms on ppc1: http://buildsys.fedoraproject.org/logs/fedora-development-extras/20314-python-sexy-0.1.9-2.fc7/ppc/build.log From bugs.michael at gmx.net Wed Oct 25 23:44:09 2006 From: bugs.michael at gmx.net (Michael Schwendt) Date: Thu, 26 Oct 2006 01:44:09 +0200 Subject: Attention, all FE packagers! In-Reply-To: <20061026013842.9a1bf349.bugs.michael@gmx.net> References: <20061025135742.25210.58694@extras64.linux.duke.edu> <20061025161156.8130dec8.bugs.michael@gmx.net> <453F73B9.8050805@leemhuis.info> <453F8416.5080105@leemhuis.info> <20061026013842.9a1bf349.bugs.michael@gmx.net> Message-ID: <20061026014409.c3ce8c61.bugs.michael@gmx.net> On Thu, 26 Oct 2006 01:38:42 +0200, Michael Schwendt wrote: > Just 40 minutes ago, python-sexy built .fc6 rpms on ppc1: > > http://buildsys.fedoraproject.org/logs/fedora-development-extras/20314-python-sexy-0.1.9-2.fc7/ppc/build.log > ppc2 still builds fc6 packages, too: http://buildsys.fedoraproject.org/logs/fedora-development-extras/20320-qstat-2.10-6.fc7/ppc/build.log From dennis at ausil.us Thu Oct 26 00:00:14 2006 From: dennis at ausil.us (Dennis Gilmore) Date: Wed, 25 Oct 2006 19:00:14 -0500 Subject: Attention, all FE packagers! In-Reply-To: <20061026014409.c3ce8c61.bugs.michael@gmx.net> References: <20061025135742.25210.58694@extras64.linux.duke.edu> <20061026013842.9a1bf349.bugs.michael@gmx.net> <20061026014409.c3ce8c61.bugs.michael@gmx.net> Message-ID: <200610251900.15071.dennis@ausil.us> On Wednesday 25 October 2006 6:44 pm, Michael Schwendt wrote: > On Thu, 26 Oct 2006 01:38:42 +0200, Michael Schwendt wrote: > > Just 40 minutes ago, python-sexy built .fc6 rpms on ppc1: > > > > http://buildsys.fedoraproject.org/logs/fedora-development-extras/20314-py > >thon-sexy-0.1.9-2.fc7/ppc/build.log > > ppc2 still builds fc6 packages, too: > > http://buildsys.fedoraproject.org/logs/fedora-development-extras/20320-qsta >t-2.10-6.fc7/ppc/build.log I fixed the wrong configs this morning. should be fixed now -- Dennis Gilmore, RHCE Proud Australian From dcbw at redhat.com Thu Oct 26 15:35:48 2006 From: dcbw at redhat.com (Dan Williams) Date: Thu, 26 Oct 2006 11:35:48 -0400 Subject: Extras build system back up In-Reply-To: <20051017212801.GJ5856@shell0.pdx.osdl.net> References: <1129572538.28887.1.camel@dhcp83-40.boston.redhat.com> <20051017201619.GB30904@shell0.pdx.osdl.net> <1129583751.1418.3.camel@dhcp83-40.boston.redhat.com> <20051017212801.GJ5856@shell0.pdx.osdl.net> Message-ID: <1161876948.2927.40.camel@localhost.localdomain> On Mon, 2005-10-17 at 14:28 -0700, Chris Wright wrote: > * Dan Williams (dcbw at redhat.com) wrote: > > As I see you've figured out, it should be fixed now. Server-side issue > > with some database fields being way too small. They are larger now :) > > Yes, thanks. Is > > [Server] > ... > allow_uploads = True > > the recommended change to config? Sorry for the lag... allow_uploads should only be configured if you're using SRPM-only building and you want to allow people to upload random SRPMs to the build server. It's useless for CVS builds. Dan > I notice plague list once creates config with > > allow_uploads = no > > thanks, > -chris > > -- > Fedora-buildsys-list mailing list > Fedora-buildsys-list at redhat.com > https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-buildsys-list From dcbw at redhat.com Thu Oct 26 15:36:58 2006 From: dcbw at redhat.com (Dan Williams) Date: Thu, 26 Oct 2006 11:36:58 -0400 Subject: Extras build system back up In-Reply-To: <20051017212801.GJ5856@shell0.pdx.osdl.net> References: <1129572538.28887.1.camel@dhcp83-40.boston.redhat.com> <20051017201619.GB30904@shell0.pdx.osdl.net> <1129583751.1418.3.camel@dhcp83-40.boston.redhat.com> <20051017212801.GJ5856@shell0.pdx.osdl.net> Message-ID: <1161877018.2927.41.camel@localhost.localdomain> On Mon, 2005-10-17 at 14:28 -0700, Chris Wright wrote: > * Dan Williams (dcbw at redhat.com) wrote: > > As I see you've figured out, it should be fixed now. Server-side issue > > with some database fields being way too small. They are larger now :) > > Yes, thanks. Is > > [Server] > ... > allow_uploads = True Haha, I just saw this was sent over a year ago. Yay for evolution and threaded message lists. > the recommended change to config? > > I notice plague list once creates config with > > allow_uploads = no > > thanks, > -chris > > -- > Fedora-buildsys-list mailing list > Fedora-buildsys-list at redhat.com > https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-buildsys-list From Jochen at herr-schmitt.de Thu Oct 26 18:53:58 2006 From: Jochen at herr-schmitt.de (Jochen Schmitt) Date: Thu, 26 Oct 2006 20:53:58 +0200 Subject: Status of update to OpenEXR-1.4.x Message-ID: <0MKwpI-1GdAMh24ey-0000mr@mrelayeu.kundenserver.de> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Hello, On September, 7th 2006 Rex Dieter has annonced, that he will update OpenEXR to version 1.4.x asap. Until now, I can't see such an update. I have noticed, that he have release OpenEXR-1.2.2-8 on October, 17th. So I want to ask, what is happen. will we see an update to OpenEXR-1.4.x in the next time or are there any blockers which prhibite this update. Best Regards: Jochen Schmitt -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: PGP Desktop 9.0.6 (Build 6060) iQA/AwUBRUEETU9gByurcX4MEQKnEQCfQIHD0LTc3gFbnRgLqZbtMSfxu4wAoLv1 D/li1srE7R3uGWlGk9v9uJ54 =0IbY -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- From rdieter at math.unl.edu Thu Oct 26 18:58:00 2006 From: rdieter at math.unl.edu (Rex Dieter) Date: Thu, 26 Oct 2006 13:58:00 -0500 Subject: Status of update to OpenEXR-1.4.x In-Reply-To: <0MKwpI-1GdAMh24ey-0000mr@mrelayeu.kundenserver.de> References: <0MKwpI-1GdAMh24ey-0000mr@mrelayeu.kundenserver.de> Message-ID: <45410538.9020904@math.unl.edu> Jochen Schmitt wrote: > On September, 7th 2006 Rex Dieter has annonced, that he will > update OpenEXR to version 1.4.x asap. Sorry I wasn't explicit in the original accouncement. My intent at the time was that it would land only in the devel branch (now fc6). > Until now, I can't see such an update. I have noticed, that he > have release OpenEXR-1.2.2-8 on October, 17th. The upgrade to 1.4.x went well (no problems reported). Is there interest in backporting this to fc5 as well? -- Rex From Jochen at herr-schmitt.de Thu Oct 26 19:17:37 2006 From: Jochen at herr-schmitt.de (Jochen Schmitt) Date: Thu, 26 Oct 2006 21:17:37 +0200 Subject: Status of update to OpenEXR-1.4.x In-Reply-To: <45410538.9020904@math.unl.edu> References: <0MKwpI-1GdAMh24ey-0000mr@mrelayeu.kundenserver.de> <45410538.9020904@math.unl.edu> Message-ID: <0MKxQS-1GdAjT257E-0004WC@mrelayeu.kundenserver.de> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On Thu, 26 Oct 2006 13:58:00 -0500, you wrote: >The upgrade to 1.4.x went well (no problems reported). Is there >interest in backporting this to fc5 as well? Thank you for the clarification. Best Regards: Jochen Schmitt -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: PGP Desktop 9.0.6 (Build 6060) iQA/AwUBRUEJ0U9gByurcX4MEQJ8SQCg2UaTmzGd30WT2DRRghlCBmaac7wAoMcV N6w+CyYYcf3r+cPujNH9V9Gm =bWrh -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- From bugs.michael at gmx.net Thu Oct 26 21:38:23 2006 From: bugs.michael at gmx.net (Michael Schwendt) Date: Thu, 26 Oct 2006 23:38:23 +0200 Subject: FCXStatus wiki pages Message-ID: <20061026233823.0a878ca3.bugs.michael@gmx.net> > /Extras/FC3Status, /Extras/FC4Status, ... /Extras/FC6Status What had started as a Wiki page for requesting builds of packages for FC-3, when Seth Vidal was our human build-system, has served a different purpose for a long time. We've extended the original page with a pointer on how to use the automatic build-system, we've used the pages for tracking some things around Fedora Extras (like packages dropped from Core), we've created a new page for every version of FC, and we've used the pages as a way for package maintainers to submit special requests to RPM package repository admins. Now it's time to stop this. Too many [confusing] pages. Too many places where to track some things. At the same time: Too many places where some things are not tracked properly. Too many things we don't really want to track, do we? ;) We've practised and evaluated this long enough now. The single place where to submit _special_ requests to the repository admins is this: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Extras/RepoRequests [...] If we could use OTRS instead, somebody in charge of that system please get back to me. [...] It should be the rare exception that you want something to be removed from the repository or that you want huge data packages duplicated to multiple repositories. What about obsolete sub-packages in the repository? As an addition to the previous process, the new RepoPrune code in production also gets rid of obsolete sub-packages in FE Development automatically (!) when your next update is published. We keep only a single release per package. For the stable branches of Fedora Extras, we keep at most two releases per package. It is recommended that you request removal of obsolete sub-packages, especially if they are broken. From orion at cora.nwra.com Thu Oct 26 22:29:29 2006 From: orion at cora.nwra.com (Orion Poplawski) Date: Thu, 26 Oct 2006 16:29:29 -0600 Subject: Multilib extras packages need i386 libpython2.4.so on x86_64 In-Reply-To: <20061026201432.29480605.bugs.michael@gmx.net> References: <20061026033433.21990.96005@extras64.linux.duke.edu> <4540D66C.9020705@cora.nwra.com> <20061026201432.29480605.bugs.michael@gmx.net> Message-ID: <454136C9.6070707@cora.nwra.com> Moving discussion to Fedora Maintainers to bring in core development. Michael Schwendt wrote: > On Thu, 26 Oct 2006 09:38:20 -0600, Orion Poplawski wrote: > >>> Broken packages in fedora-extras-development-x86_64: >>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------- >>> csound-5.03.0-5.fc7.i386 requires libpython2.4.so.1.0 >>> k3d-0.6.3.1-1.fc6.i386 requires libpython2.4.so.1.0 >>> koffice-core-1.6.0-2.fc7.i386 requires libpython2.4.so.1.0 >>> koffice-kivio-1.6.0-2.fc7.i386 requires libpython2.4.so.1.0 >>> plplot-5.6.1-7.fc6.i386 requires libpython2.4.so.1.0 >>> plplot-gnome-5.6.1-7.fc6.i386 requires libpython2.4.so.1.0 >>> scribus-1.3.3.4-1.fc6.i386 requires libpython2.4.so.1.0 >>> >> Why is libpython2.4.so.1.0 missing on x86_64 but not i386? > > This is multi-lib enabled Fedora Extras Development. > > In addition to Wine (and its dependencies), now i386 -devel packages and > their dependencies are available in x86_64 Extras, too. > > If libpython2.4.so.1.0 i386 (!) is not in Rawhide x86_64, we need to talk > about it and either start black-listing i386 Extras packages, which we > don't want to have multi-lib enabled (or fix the sub-packages). > > Above are dependencies of: > > csound-devel > k3d-devel > koffice-devel > plplot-devel > scribus-devel > So, are the above packages in error, or do we need to get i386 libpython2.4.so into the x86_64 tree? -- Orion Poplawski System Administrator 303-415-9701 x222 NWRA/CoRA Division FAX: 303-415-9702 3380 Mitchell Lane orion at cora.nwra.com Boulder, CO 80301 http://www.cora.nwra.com From bugs.michael at gmx.net Fri Oct 27 06:51:07 2006 From: bugs.michael at gmx.net (Michael Schwendt) Date: Fri, 27 Oct 2006 08:51:07 +0200 Subject: Multilib extras packages need i386 libpython2.4.so on x86_64 In-Reply-To: <454136C9.6070707@cora.nwra.com> References: <20061026033433.21990.96005@extras64.linux.duke.edu> <4540D66C.9020705@cora.nwra.com> <20061026201432.29480605.bugs.michael@gmx.net> <454136C9.6070707@cora.nwra.com> Message-ID: <20061027085107.0fea0286.bugs.michael@gmx.net> On Thu, 26 Oct 2006 16:29:29 -0600, Orion Poplawski wrote: > Moving discussion to Fedora Maintainers to bring in core development. > > Michael Schwendt wrote: > > On Thu, 26 Oct 2006 09:38:20 -0600, Orion Poplawski wrote: > > > >>> Broken packages in fedora-extras-development-x86_64: > >>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > >>> csound-5.03.0-5.fc7.i386 requires libpython2.4.so.1.0 > >>> k3d-0.6.3.1-1.fc6.i386 requires libpython2.4.so.1.0 > >>> koffice-core-1.6.0-2.fc7.i386 requires libpython2.4.so.1.0 > >>> koffice-kivio-1.6.0-2.fc7.i386 requires libpython2.4.so.1.0 > >>> plplot-5.6.1-7.fc6.i386 requires libpython2.4.so.1.0 > >>> plplot-gnome-5.6.1-7.fc6.i386 requires libpython2.4.so.1.0 > >>> scribus-1.3.3.4-1.fc6.i386 requires libpython2.4.so.1.0 > >>> > >> Why is libpython2.4.so.1.0 missing on x86_64 but not i386? > > > > This is multi-lib enabled Fedora Extras Development. > > > > In addition to Wine (and its dependencies), now i386 -devel packages and > > their dependencies are available in x86_64 Extras, too. > > > > If libpython2.4.so.1.0 i386 (!) is not in Rawhide x86_64, we need to talk > > about it and either start black-listing i386 Extras packages, which we > > don't want to have multi-lib enabled (or fix the sub-packages). > > > > Above are dependencies of: > > > > csound-devel > > k3d-devel > > koffice-devel > > plplot-devel > > scribus-devel > > > > So, are the above packages in error, or do we need to get i386 > libpython2.4.so into the x86_64 tree? Very doubtful, because: $ rpm -q --whatprovides libpython2.4.so.1.0 python-2.4.3-18.fc6 From denis at poolshark.org Fri Oct 27 14:14:26 2006 From: denis at poolshark.org (Denis Leroy) Date: Fri, 27 Oct 2006 16:14:26 +0200 Subject: Multilib extras packages need i386 libpython2.4.so on x86_64 In-Reply-To: <20061027085107.0fea0286.bugs.michael@gmx.net> References: <20061026033433.21990.96005@extras64.linux.duke.edu> <4540D66C.9020705@cora.nwra.com> <20061026201432.29480605.bugs.michael@gmx.net> <454136C9.6070707@cora.nwra.com> <20061027085107.0fea0286.bugs.michael@gmx.net> Message-ID: <45421442.5090708@poolshark.org> Michael Schwendt wrote: > On Thu, 26 Oct 2006 16:29:29 -0600, Orion Poplawski wrote: > >> Moving discussion to Fedora Maintainers to bring in core development. >> >> Michael Schwendt wrote: >>> On Thu, 26 Oct 2006 09:38:20 -0600, Orion Poplawski wrote: >>> >>>>> Broken packages in fedora-extras-development-x86_64: >>>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>> csound-5.03.0-5.fc7.i386 requires libpython2.4.so.1.0 >>>>> k3d-0.6.3.1-1.fc6.i386 requires libpython2.4.so.1.0 >>>>> koffice-core-1.6.0-2.fc7.i386 requires libpython2.4.so.1.0 >>>>> koffice-kivio-1.6.0-2.fc7.i386 requires libpython2.4.so.1.0 >>>>> plplot-5.6.1-7.fc6.i386 requires libpython2.4.so.1.0 >>>>> plplot-gnome-5.6.1-7.fc6.i386 requires libpython2.4.so.1.0 >>>>> scribus-1.3.3.4-1.fc6.i386 requires libpython2.4.so.1.0 >>>>> >>>> Why is libpython2.4.so.1.0 missing on x86_64 but not i386? >>> This is multi-lib enabled Fedora Extras Development. >>> >>> In addition to Wine (and its dependencies), now i386 -devel packages and >>> their dependencies are available in x86_64 Extras, too. >>> >>> If libpython2.4.so.1.0 i386 (!) is not in Rawhide x86_64, we need to talk >>> about it and either start black-listing i386 Extras packages, which we >>> don't want to have multi-lib enabled (or fix the sub-packages). >>> >>> Above are dependencies of: >>> >>> csound-devel >>> k3d-devel >>> koffice-devel >>> plplot-devel >>> scribus-devel >>> >> So, are the above packages in error, or do we need to get i386 >> libpython2.4.so into the x86_64 tree? > > Very doubtful, because: > > $ rpm -q --whatprovides libpython2.4.so.1.0 > python-2.4.3-18.fc6 hmm, I'm not sure i fully understand. Are you requesting anything from the packagers ? k3d simply has a BR: python-devel in its main package. Does it need a specific R: python then ? From bugs.michael at gmx.net Fri Oct 27 14:53:05 2006 From: bugs.michael at gmx.net (Michael Schwendt) Date: Fri, 27 Oct 2006 16:53:05 +0200 Subject: Multilib extras packages need i386 libpython2.4.so on x86_64 In-Reply-To: <45421442.5090708@poolshark.org> References: <20061026033433.21990.96005@extras64.linux.duke.edu> <4540D66C.9020705@cora.nwra.com> <20061026201432.29480605.bugs.michael@gmx.net> <454136C9.6070707@cora.nwra.com> <20061027085107.0fea0286.bugs.michael@gmx.net> <45421442.5090708@poolshark.org> Message-ID: <20061027165305.d2079d44.bugs.michael@gmx.net> On Fri, 27 Oct 2006 16:14:26 +0200, Denis Leroy wrote: > >>>>> Broken packages in fedora-extras-development-x86_64: > >>>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > >>>>> k3d-0.6.3.1-1.fc6.i386 requires libpython2.4.so.1.0 > >>>> Why is libpython2.4.so.1.0 missing on x86_64 but not i386? > >>> This is multi-lib enabled Fedora Extras Development. > >>> > >>> In addition to Wine (and its dependencies), now i386 -devel packages and > >>> their dependencies are available in x86_64 Extras, too. > >>> > >>> If libpython2.4.so.1.0 i386 (!) is not in Rawhide x86_64, we need to talk > >>> about it and either start black-listing i386 Extras packages, which we > >>> don't want to have multi-lib enabled (or fix the sub-packages). > >>> > >>> Above are dependencies of: > >>> > >>> csound-devel > >>> k3d-devel > >>> koffice-devel > >>> plplot-devel > >>> scribus-devel > >>> > >> So, are the above packages in error, or do we need to get i386 > >> libpython2.4.so into the x86_64 tree? > > > > Very doubtful, because: > > > > $ rpm -q --whatprovides libpython2.4.so.1.0 > > python-2.4.3-18.fc6 > > hmm, I'm not sure i fully understand. Are you requesting anything from > the packagers ? k3d simply has a BR: python-devel in its main package. > Does it need a specific R: python then ? That won't make available i386 Python in Core on x86_64. But if you wanted to make k3d-devel multi-compatible, you could split the huge k3d package into a k3d-sdk (or k3d-libs) package and a main application package. Then k3d-devel could depend on just k3d-sdk and would no longer require Python. $ rpm -qf $(which k3d-config) k3d-devel-0.6.3.1-1.fc6 $ k3d-config --libs -L/usr/lib -lk3dsdk -lsigc-2.0 -L/usr/lib -lGL -lpthread -L/usr/lib -lGLU $ ldd /usr/lib/libk3d*.so.0|grep pyt $ A similar approach might suffice with other four packages listed above. From bugs.michael at gmx.net Fri Oct 27 14:55:03 2006 From: bugs.michael at gmx.net (Michael Schwendt) Date: Fri, 27 Oct 2006 16:55:03 +0200 Subject: Multilib extras packages need i386 libpython2.4.so on x86_64 In-Reply-To: <20061027165305.d2079d44.bugs.michael@gmx.net> References: <20061026033433.21990.96005@extras64.linux.duke.edu> <4540D66C.9020705@cora.nwra.com> <20061026201432.29480605.bugs.michael@gmx.net> <454136C9.6070707@cora.nwra.com> <20061027085107.0fea0286.bugs.michael@gmx.net> <45421442.5090708@poolshark.org> <20061027165305.d2079d44.bugs.michael@gmx.net> Message-ID: <20061027165503.b2231b58.bugs.michael@gmx.net> On Fri, 27 Oct 2006 16:53:05 +0200, Michael Schwendt wrote: >>>>>> Broken packages in fedora-extras-development-x86_64: >>>>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------- >>>>>> k3d-0.6.3.1-1.fc6.i386 requires libpython2.4.so.1.0 Alternatively, we put k3d-devel on the multi-lib black-list. From jkeating at redhat.com Fri Oct 27 16:13:19 2006 From: jkeating at redhat.com (Jesse Keating) Date: Fri, 27 Oct 2006 12:13:19 -0400 Subject: Multilib extras packages need i386 libpython2.4.so on x86_64 In-Reply-To: <20061027165503.b2231b58.bugs.michael@gmx.net> References: <20061026033433.21990.96005@extras64.linux.duke.edu> <20061027165305.d2079d44.bugs.michael@gmx.net> <20061027165503.b2231b58.bugs.michael@gmx.net> Message-ID: <200610271213.22531.jkeating@redhat.com> On Friday 27 October 2006 10:55, Michael Schwendt wrote: > Alternatively, we put k3d-devel on the multi-lib black-list. This should be a last resort, but I'm pretty sure you feel that way too (: -- Jesse Keating Release Engineer: Fedora -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 189 bytes Desc: not available URL: From orion at cora.nwra.com Fri Oct 27 16:51:40 2006 From: orion at cora.nwra.com (Orion Poplawski) Date: Fri, 27 Oct 2006 10:51:40 -0600 Subject: Multilib extras packages need i386 libpython2.4.so on x86_64 In-Reply-To: <45421442.5090708@poolshark.org> References: <20061026033433.21990.96005@extras64.linux.duke.edu> <4540D66C.9020705@cora.nwra.com> <20061026201432.29480605.bugs.michael@gmx.net> <454136C9.6070707@cora.nwra.com> <20061027085107.0fea0286.bugs.michael@gmx.net> <45421442.5090708@poolshark.org> Message-ID: <4542391C.9020301@cora.nwra.com> Denis Leroy wrote: > > hmm, I'm not sure i fully understand. Are you requesting anything from > the packagers ? k3d simply has a BR: python-devel in its main package. > Does it need a specific R: python then ? I think the question is, "Why isn't i386 libpython2.4.so.1.0 in the x86_64 repo?" The issue has come up before with OpenOffice Alternatively, the question is "Why do these packages need libpython24.so.1.0 and is that proper?" -- Orion Poplawski System Administrator 303-415-9701 x222 NWRA/CoRA Division FAX: 303-415-9702 3380 Mitchell Lane orion at cora.nwra.com Boulder, CO 80301 http://www.cora.nwra.com From fedora at leemhuis.info Fri Oct 27 17:55:01 2006 From: fedora at leemhuis.info (Thorsten Leemhuis) Date: Fri, 27 Oct 2006 19:55:01 +0200 Subject: Thanks everyone for your great work in Extras Message-ID: <454247F5.30603@leemhuis.info> Hi, FC6 is out and FE6 seems to work quite well afaics. So I'd like to use this post-release situation (guys, remember, we need to prepare the next release soon, FC7 is only round about six month away afaik) simply to say: Thanks everyone for your great work in Extras. And of course also thanks to the Core developers for their work on FC6. I'd like to send out some special thanks to: - Ville Skytt? -- for managing the mass rebuild. It was a lot of work and a lot of things got cleaned up. I think it was worth the effort and Extras is in a lot better shape now. - Michael Schwendt -- for the build/push and the recent scripts that do some cleanups now and then - Christian Iseli -- for pushing the second partial mass-rebuild - Denis Gilmore, Mike McGrath and some other sysadmis -- for managing the build servers - Matt Domsch -- for his mass-rebuilds to fix the missing build requires CU thl From bugs.michael at gmx.net Fri Oct 27 17:57:27 2006 From: bugs.michael at gmx.net (Michael Schwendt) Date: Fri, 27 Oct 2006 19:57:27 +0200 Subject: Multilib extras packages need i386 libpython2.4.so on x86_64 In-Reply-To: <4542391C.9020301@cora.nwra.com> References: <20061026033433.21990.96005@extras64.linux.duke.edu> <4540D66C.9020705@cora.nwra.com> <20061026201432.29480605.bugs.michael@gmx.net> <454136C9.6070707@cora.nwra.com> <20061027085107.0fea0286.bugs.michael@gmx.net> <45421442.5090708@poolshark.org> <4542391C.9020301@cora.nwra.com> Message-ID: <20061027195727.8890342f.bugs.michael@gmx.net> On Fri, 27 Oct 2006 10:51:40 -0600, Orion Poplawski wrote: > Denis Leroy wrote: > > > > hmm, I'm not sure i fully understand. Are you requesting anything from > > the packagers ? k3d simply has a BR: python-devel in its main package. > > Does it need a specific R: python then ? > > I think the question is, "Why isn't i386 libpython2.4.so.1.0 in the > x86_64 repo?" The issue has come up before with OpenOffice > > > Alternatively, the question is "Why do these packages need > libpython24.so.1.0 and is that proper?" With BR python-devel and a file /usr/lib/k3d/libk3dpython.so.* that looks very much like it's a k3d plugin for Python scripting support. From orion at cora.nwra.com Fri Oct 27 19:22:40 2006 From: orion at cora.nwra.com (Orion Poplawski) Date: Fri, 27 Oct 2006 13:22:40 -0600 Subject: Multilib extras packages need i386 libpython2.4.so on x86_64 In-Reply-To: <20061027195727.8890342f.bugs.michael@gmx.net> References: <20061026033433.21990.96005@extras64.linux.duke.edu> <4540D66C.9020705@cora.nwra.com> <20061026201432.29480605.bugs.michael@gmx.net> <454136C9.6070707@cora.nwra.com> <20061027085107.0fea0286.bugs.michael@gmx.net> <45421442.5090708@poolshark.org> <4542391C.9020301@cora.nwra.com> <20061027195727.8890342f.bugs.michael@gmx.net> Message-ID: <45425C80.9090906@cora.nwra.com> Michael Schwendt wrote: > On Fri, 27 Oct 2006 10:51:40 -0600, Orion Poplawski wrote: > >> >> Alternatively, the question is "Why do these packages need >> libpython24.so.1.0 and is that proper?" > > With BR python-devel and a file /usr/lib/k3d/libk3dpython.so.* that > looks very much like it's a k3d plugin for Python scripting support. Well, in my case (plplot), plplot-devel provides: /usr/lib/libcsirocsa.so /usr/lib/libcsironn.so /usr/lib/libplplotcxxd.so /usr/lib/libplplotd.so /usr/lib/libplplotf77cd.so /usr/lib/libplplotf77d.so /usr/lib/libplplotf95cd.so /usr/lib/libplplotf95d.so None of which require libpython2.4.so.1.0. However plplot-devel does require plplot, which also provides: /usr/lib/python2.4/site-packages/_plplotcmodule.so /usr/lib/python2.4/site-packages/plplot_widgetmodule.so which do require it. So in this case it seems like the thing to do might be to move the first libraries into plplot-libs, and have plplot-devel require that, not plplot, much like you pointed out with k3d. So the answer to the above question may be, "No, it's not proper. Fix your packages so the -devel packages don't require libpython2.4.so.1.0". -- Orion Poplawski System Administrator 303-415-9701 x222 NWRA/CoRA Division FAX: 303-415-9702 3380 Mitchell Lane orion at cora.nwra.com Boulder, CO 80301 http://www.cora.nwra.com From jwboyer at jdub.homelinux.org Sat Oct 28 14:11:38 2006 From: jwboyer at jdub.homelinux.org (Josh Boyer) Date: Sat, 28 Oct 2006 09:11:38 -0500 Subject: Thanks everyone for your great work in Extras In-Reply-To: <454247F5.30603@leemhuis.info> References: <454247F5.30603@leemhuis.info> Message-ID: <1162044698.3139.16.camel@vader.jdub.homelinux.org> On Fri, 2006-10-27 at 19:55 +0200, Thorsten Leemhuis wrote: > Hi, > > FC6 is out and FE6 seems to work quite well afaics. So I'd like to use > this post-release situation (guys, remember, we need to prepare the next > release soon, FC7 is only round about six month away afaik) simply to say: > > Thanks everyone for your great work in Extras. > And of course also thanks to the Core developers for their work on FC6. > > I'd like to send out some special thanks to: > > - Ville Skytt? -- for managing the mass rebuild. It was a lot of work > and a lot of things got cleaned up. I think it was worth the effort and > Extras is in a lot better shape now. > - Michael Schwendt -- for the build/push and the recent scripts that do > some cleanups now and then > - Christian Iseli -- for pushing the second partial mass-rebuild > - Denis Gilmore, Mike McGrath and some other sysadmis -- for managing > the build servers > - Matt Domsch -- for his mass-rebuilds to fix the missing build requires A big +10 josh From buildsys at fedoraproject.org Sat Oct 28 18:48:37 2006 From: buildsys at fedoraproject.org (buildsys at fedoraproject.org) Date: Sat, 28 Oct 2006 14:48:37 -0400 (EDT) Subject: Package EVR problems in FC+FE 2006-10-28 Message-ID: <20061028184837.DB3E315212E@buildsys.fedoraproject.org> UNKNOWN OWNER (possibly Core package): anacron FC5-updates > FC6 (0:2.3-42.fc5 > 0:2.3-41.fc6) checkpolicy FC5-updates > FC6 (0:1.32-1.fc5 > 0:1.30.12-1) FC5-updates > FC7 (0:1.32-1.fc5 > 0:1.30.12-1) device-mapper FC4-updates > FC5 (0:1.02.07-2.0 > 0:1.02.02-3.2) eclipse-changelog FC6-updates > FC7 (1:2.3.3-2.fc6 > 1:2.3.3-1.fc7) gnome-netstatus FC6 > FC7 (0:2.12.0-5.1 > 0:2.12.0-5.fc7) libsepol FC5-updates > FC7 (0:1.15.1-1.fc5 > 0:1.15.1-1) FC6-updates > FC7 (0:1.15.1-1.fc6 > 0:1.15.1-1) libvirt FC5-updates > FC6 (0:0.1.7-2.FC5 > 0:0.1.7-2) lvm2 FC4-updates > FC5 (0:2.02.06-1.0.fc4 > 0:2.02.01-1.2.1) mdadm FC6 > FC7 (0:2.5.4-2.fc6 > 0:2.5.4-1.fc7) mozilla FL3-updates > FC4-updates (37:1.7.13-1.3.1.legacy > 37:1.7.13-1.1.fc4) FL3-updates > FC5-updates (37:1.7.13-1.3.1.legacy > 37:1.7.13-1.1.fc5) quagga FC4-updates > FC5-updates (0:0.98.6-1.fc4 > 0:0.98.6-1.FC5) traceroute FC5 > FC7 (2:1.0.4-1.2 > 0:2.0.1-1) FC6 > FC7 (2:1.0.4-2 > 0:2.0.1-1) vnc FC6-updates > FC7 (0:4.1.2-5.fc6 > 0:4.1.2-4.fc7) xsane FC5-updates > FC7 (0:0.991-4.fc5 > 0:0.991-3.fc7) FC6-updates > FC7 (0:0.991-4.fc6 > 0:0.991-3.fc7) andreas.bierfert AT lowlatency.de: libopensync-plugin-irmc FE4 > FE5 (0:0.19-1.fc4 > 0:0.18-6.fc5) wine FE3 > FE7 (0:0.9.24-1.fc3 > 0:0.9.23-1.fc6) FE4 > FE7 (0:0.9.24-1.fc4 > 0:0.9.23-1.fc6) FE5 > FE7 (0:0.9.24-1.fc5 > 0:0.9.23-1.fc6) FE6 > FE7 (0:0.9.24-1.fc6 > 0:0.9.23-1.fc6) dmitry AT butskoy.name: dvdisaster FE6 > FE7 (0:0.70.2-2.fc6 > 0:0.70.2-1.fc6) fedora AT theholbrooks.org: php-json FE6 > FE7 (0:1.2.1-5.fc6 > 0:1.2.1-3.fc6) php-shout FE6 > FE7 (0:0.3.1-7.fc6 > 0:0.3.1-6.fc6) gauret AT free.fr: basket FE5 > FE7 (0:0.6.0-1.fc5 > 0:0.5.0-10.fc6) FE6 > FE7 (0:0.6.0-1.fc6 > 0:0.5.0-10.fc6) wv FE5 > FE7 (0:1.2.4-1.fc5 > 0:1.2.1-7.fc6) FE6 > FE7 (0:1.2.4-1.fc6 > 0:1.2.1-7.fc6) icon AT fedoraproject.org: cvs2svn FE5 > FE7 (0:1.5.0-1.fc5 > 0:1.4.0-2.fc6) FE6 > FE7 (0:1.5.0-1.fc6 > 0:1.4.0-2.fc6) yaz FE5 > FE7 (0:2.1.36-1.fc5 > 0:2.1.26-1.1.fc6) FE6 > FE7 (0:2.1.36-1.fc6 > 0:2.1.26-1.1.fc6) mdehaan AT redhat.com: cobbler FE5 > FE7 (0:0.3.1-1.fc5 > 0:0.2.8-1.fc6) FE6 > FE7 (0:0.3.1-1.fc6 > 0:0.2.8-1.fc6) koan FE5 > FE7 (0:0.2.3-1.fc5 > 0:0.2.1-1.fc6) FE6 > FE7 (0:0.2.4-1.fc6 > 0:0.2.1-1.fc6) paul AT all-the-johnsons.co.uk: anjuta FE6 > FE7 (1:2.0.2-9.fc6 > 1:2.0.2-8.fc6) monodevelop FE6 > FE7 (0:0.12-6.fc6 > 0:0.12-5.fc6) petersen AT redhat.com: m17n-db FE3 > FC5 (0:1.3.3-1.fc3 > 0:1.3.3-1) FE4 > FC5 (0:1.3.3-1.fc4 > 0:1.3.3-1) rdieter AT math.unl.edu: qt4 FE5 > FE7 (0:4.2.1-2.fc5 > 0:4.2.1-1.fc6) FE6 > FE7 (0:4.2.1-2.fc6 > 0:4.2.1-1.fc6) thomas AT apestaart.org: flumotion FE5 > FE6 (0:0.2.2-1.fc5 > 0:0.2.1-3.fc6) FE5 > FE7 (0:0.2.2-1.fc5 > 0:0.2.1-3.fc6) zcerza AT redhat.com: dogtail FE5 > FC6 (0:0.6.0-2.fc5 > 0:0.6.0-1.fc6) FE5 > FC7 (0:0.6.0-2.fc5 > 0:0.6.0-1.fc6) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- anacron: UNKNOWN OWNER (possibly Core package) FC5-updates > FC6 (0:2.3-42.fc5 > 0:2.3-41.fc6) anjuta: paul AT all-the-johnsons.co.uk FE6 > FE7 (1:2.0.2-9.fc6 > 1:2.0.2-8.fc6) basket: gauret AT free.fr FE5 > FE7 (0:0.6.0-1.fc5 > 0:0.5.0-10.fc6) FE6 > FE7 (0:0.6.0-1.fc6 > 0:0.5.0-10.fc6) checkpolicy: UNKNOWN OWNER (possibly Core package) FC5-updates > FC6 (0:1.32-1.fc5 > 0:1.30.12-1) FC5-updates > FC7 (0:1.32-1.fc5 > 0:1.30.12-1) cobbler: mdehaan AT redhat.com FE5 > FE7 (0:0.3.1-1.fc5 > 0:0.2.8-1.fc6) FE6 > FE7 (0:0.3.1-1.fc6 > 0:0.2.8-1.fc6) cvs2svn: icon AT fedoraproject.org FE5 > FE7 (0:1.5.0-1.fc5 > 0:1.4.0-2.fc6) FE6 > FE7 (0:1.5.0-1.fc6 > 0:1.4.0-2.fc6) device-mapper: UNKNOWN OWNER (possibly Core package) FC4-updates > FC5 (0:1.02.07-2.0 > 0:1.02.02-3.2) dogtail: zcerza AT redhat.com FE5 > FC6 (0:0.6.0-2.fc5 > 0:0.6.0-1.fc6) FE5 > FC7 (0:0.6.0-2.fc5 > 0:0.6.0-1.fc6) dvdisaster: dmitry AT butskoy.name FE6 > FE7 (0:0.70.2-2.fc6 > 0:0.70.2-1.fc6) eclipse-changelog: UNKNOWN OWNER (possibly Core package) FC6-updates > FC7 (1:2.3.3-2.fc6 > 1:2.3.3-1.fc7) flumotion: thomas AT apestaart.org FE5 > FE6 (0:0.2.2-1.fc5 > 0:0.2.1-3.fc6) FE5 > FE7 (0:0.2.2-1.fc5 > 0:0.2.1-3.fc6) gnome-netstatus: UNKNOWN OWNER (possibly Core package) FC6 > FC7 (0:2.12.0-5.1 > 0:2.12.0-5.fc7) koan: mdehaan AT redhat.com FE5 > FE7 (0:0.2.3-1.fc5 > 0:0.2.1-1.fc6) FE6 > FE7 (0:0.2.4-1.fc6 > 0:0.2.1-1.fc6) libopensync-plugin-irmc: andreas.bierfert AT lowlatency.de FE4 > FE5 (0:0.19-1.fc4 > 0:0.18-6.fc5) libsepol: UNKNOWN OWNER (possibly Core package) FC5-updates > FC7 (0:1.15.1-1.fc5 > 0:1.15.1-1) FC6-updates > FC7 (0:1.15.1-1.fc6 > 0:1.15.1-1) libvirt: UNKNOWN OWNER (possibly Core package) FC5-updates > FC6 (0:0.1.7-2.FC5 > 0:0.1.7-2) lvm2: UNKNOWN OWNER (possibly Core package) FC4-updates > FC5 (0:2.02.06-1.0.fc4 > 0:2.02.01-1.2.1) m17n-db: petersen AT redhat.com FE3 > FC5 (0:1.3.3-1.fc3 > 0:1.3.3-1) FE4 > FC5 (0:1.3.3-1.fc4 > 0:1.3.3-1) mdadm: UNKNOWN OWNER (possibly Core package) FC6 > FC7 (0:2.5.4-2.fc6 > 0:2.5.4-1.fc7) monodevelop: paul AT all-the-johnsons.co.uk FE6 > FE7 (0:0.12-6.fc6 > 0:0.12-5.fc6) mozilla: UNKNOWN OWNER (possibly Core package) FL3-updates > FC4-updates (37:1.7.13-1.3.1.legacy > 37:1.7.13-1.1.fc4) FL3-updates > FC5-updates (37:1.7.13-1.3.1.legacy > 37:1.7.13-1.1.fc5) php-json: fedora AT theholbrooks.org FE6 > FE7 (0:1.2.1-5.fc6 > 0:1.2.1-3.fc6) php-shout: fedora AT theholbrooks.org FE6 > FE7 (0:0.3.1-7.fc6 > 0:0.3.1-6.fc6) qt4: rdieter AT math.unl.edu FE5 > FE7 (0:4.2.1-2.fc5 > 0:4.2.1-1.fc6) FE6 > FE7 (0:4.2.1-2.fc6 > 0:4.2.1-1.fc6) quagga: UNKNOWN OWNER (possibly Core package) FC4-updates > FC5-updates (0:0.98.6-1.fc4 > 0:0.98.6-1.FC5) traceroute: UNKNOWN OWNER (possibly Core package) FC5 > FC7 (2:1.0.4-1.2 > 0:2.0.1-1) FC6 > FC7 (2:1.0.4-2 > 0:2.0.1-1) vnc: UNKNOWN OWNER (possibly Core package) FC6-updates > FC7 (0:4.1.2-5.fc6 > 0:4.1.2-4.fc7) wine: andreas.bierfert AT lowlatency.de FE3 > FE7 (0:0.9.24-1.fc3 > 0:0.9.23-1.fc6) FE4 > FE7 (0:0.9.24-1.fc4 > 0:0.9.23-1.fc6) FE5 > FE7 (0:0.9.24-1.fc5 > 0:0.9.23-1.fc6) FE6 > FE7 (0:0.9.24-1.fc6 > 0:0.9.23-1.fc6) wv: gauret AT free.fr FE5 > FE7 (0:1.2.4-1.fc5 > 0:1.2.1-7.fc6) FE6 > FE7 (0:1.2.4-1.fc6 > 0:1.2.1-7.fc6) xsane: UNKNOWN OWNER (possibly Core package) FC5-updates > FC7 (0:0.991-4.fc5 > 0:0.991-3.fc7) FC6-updates > FC7 (0:0.991-4.fc6 > 0:0.991-3.fc7) yaz: icon AT fedoraproject.org FE5 > FE7 (0:2.1.36-1.fc5 > 0:2.1.26-1.1.fc6) FE6 > FE7 (0:2.1.36-1.fc6 > 0:2.1.26-1.1.fc6) From tibbs at math.uh.edu Sat Oct 28 18:59:11 2006 From: tibbs at math.uh.edu (Jason L Tibbitts III) Date: 28 Oct 2006 13:59:11 -0500 Subject: Package EVR problems in FC+FE 2006-10-28 In-Reply-To: <20061028184837.DB3E315212E@buildsys.fedoraproject.org> References: <20061028184837.DB3E315212E@buildsys.fedoraproject.org> Message-ID: For those who haven't seen this report before, it shows all packages where the ordering of versions is incorrect. The version of a package in rawhide/FC7 should always sort as "newer" than a version in FC6, FC6 should be newer than FC5, etc. Otherwise upgrades can break. This report was previously sent to fedora-extras-list but that missed the Core developers so it's now being sent to -maintainers. Obviously there's not much to do about old problems between, say, FC3 and FC4 but it would be good to fix up any FC5 > FC6 and FC6 > rawhide/FC7 issues. - J< From bugs.michael at gmx.net Sat Oct 28 19:43:36 2006 From: bugs.michael at gmx.net (Michael Schwendt) Date: Sat, 28 Oct 2006 21:43:36 +0200 Subject: traceroute (was: Re: Package EVR problems in FC+FE 2006-10-28) In-Reply-To: <20061028184837.DB3E315212E@buildsys.fedoraproject.org> References: <20061028184837.DB3E315212E@buildsys.fedoraproject.org> Message-ID: <20061028214336.9fe32d51.bugs.michael@gmx.net> On Sat, 28 Oct 2006 14:48:37 -0400 (EDT), buildsys wrote: > traceroute > FC5 > FC7 (2:1.0.4-1.2 > 0:2.0.1-1) > FC6 > FC7 (2:1.0.4-2 > 0:2.0.1-1) Apparently, the Epoch was dropped during version update to 2.0.1. -> EAGAIN From katzj at redhat.com Sun Oct 29 14:15:47 2006 From: katzj at redhat.com (Jeremy Katz) Date: Sun, 29 Oct 2006 09:15:47 -0500 Subject: Multilib extras packages need i386 libpython2.4.so on x86_64 In-Reply-To: <454136C9.6070707@cora.nwra.com> References: <20061026033433.21990.96005@extras64.linux.duke.edu> <4540D66C.9020705@cora.nwra.com> <20061026201432.29480605.bugs.michael@gmx.net> <454136C9.6070707@cora.nwra.com> Message-ID: <1162131347.7755.4.camel@aglarond.local> On Thu, 2006-10-26 at 16:29 -0600, Orion Poplawski wrote: > Moving discussion to Fedora Maintainers to bring in core development. [snip] > > If libpython2.4.so.1.0 i386 (!) is not in Rawhide x86_64, we need to talk > > about it and either start black-listing i386 Extras packages, which we > > don't want to have multi-lib enabled (or fix the sub-packages). > > > > Above are dependencies of: [snip] > So, are the above packages in error, or do we need to get i386 > libpython2.4.so into the x86_64 tree? I'll get python split up in a way that makes it reasonable to have multilib libpython after getting python 2.5 into rawhide. Note that this doesn't mean that all modules will be available for both libpython's (or that there will be two interpreters) Jeremy From buildsys at fedoraproject.org Sun Oct 29 21:13:17 2006 From: buildsys at fedoraproject.org (buildsys at fedoraproject.org) Date: Sun, 29 Oct 2006 16:13:17 -0500 (EST) Subject: Package EVR problems in FC+FE 2006-10-29 Message-ID: <20061029211317.C9295152139@buildsys.fedoraproject.org> UNKNOWN OWNER (possibly Core package): anacron FC5-updates > FC6 (0:2.3-42.fc5 > 0:2.3-41.fc6) checkpolicy FC5-updates > FC6 (0:1.32-1.fc5 > 0:1.30.12-1) FC5-updates > FC7 (0:1.32-1.fc5 > 0:1.30.12-1) device-mapper FC4-updates > FC5 (0:1.02.07-2.0 > 0:1.02.02-3.2) eclipse-changelog FC6-updates > FC7 (1:2.3.3-2.fc6 > 1:2.3.3-1.fc7) gnome-netstatus FC6 > FC7 (0:2.12.0-5.1 > 0:2.12.0-5.fc7) libsepol FC5-updates > FC7 (0:1.15.1-1.fc5 > 0:1.15.1-1) FC6-updates > FC7 (0:1.15.1-1.fc6 > 0:1.15.1-1) libvirt FC5-updates > FC6 (0:0.1.7-2.FC5 > 0:0.1.7-2) lvm2 FC4-updates > FC5 (0:2.02.06-1.0.fc4 > 0:2.02.01-1.2.1) mdadm FC6 > FC7 (0:2.5.4-2.fc6 > 0:2.5.4-1.fc7) mozilla FL3-updates > FC4-updates (37:1.7.13-1.3.1.legacy > 37:1.7.13-1.1.fc4) FL3-updates > FC5-updates (37:1.7.13-1.3.1.legacy > 37:1.7.13-1.1.fc5) quagga FC4-updates > FC5-updates (0:0.98.6-1.fc4 > 0:0.98.6-1.FC5) traceroute FC5 > FC7 (2:1.0.4-1.2 > 0:2.0.1-1) FC6 > FC7 (2:1.0.4-2 > 0:2.0.1-1) vnc FC6-updates > FC7 (0:4.1.2-5.fc6 > 0:4.1.2-4.fc7) xsane FC5-updates > FC7 (0:0.991-4.fc5 > 0:0.991-3.fc7) FC6-updates > FC7 (0:0.991-4.fc6 > 0:0.991-3.fc7) andreas.bierfert AT lowlatency.de: libopensync-plugin-irmc FE4 > FE5 (0:0.19-1.fc4 > 0:0.18-6.fc5) wine FE3 > FE7 (0:0.9.24-1.fc3 > 0:0.9.23-1.fc6) FE4 > FE7 (0:0.9.24-1.fc4 > 0:0.9.23-1.fc6) FE5 > FE7 (0:0.9.24-1.fc5 > 0:0.9.23-1.fc6) FE6 > FE7 (0:0.9.24-1.fc6 > 0:0.9.23-1.fc6) ch.nolte AT fh-wolfenbuettel.de: kbibtex FE4 > FE6 (0:0.1.5-3.fc4 > 0:0.1.5-1.fc6) FE4 > FE7 (0:0.1.5-3.fc4 > 0:0.1.5-2.fc7) FE5 > FE6 (0:0.1.5-3.fc5 > 0:0.1.5-1.fc6) FE5 > FE7 (0:0.1.5-3.fc5 > 0:0.1.5-2.fc7) dmitry AT butskoy.name: dvdisaster FE6 > FE7 (0:0.70.2-2.fc6 > 0:0.70.2-1.fc6) fedora AT theholbrooks.org: php-json FE6 > FE7 (0:1.2.1-5.fc6 > 0:1.2.1-3.fc6) php-shout FE6 > FE7 (0:0.3.1-7.fc6 > 0:0.3.1-6.fc6) icon AT fedoraproject.org: cvs2svn FE5 > FE7 (0:1.5.0-1.fc5 > 0:1.4.0-2.fc6) FE6 > FE7 (0:1.5.0-1.fc6 > 0:1.4.0-2.fc6) poedit FE5 > FE7 (0:1.3.5-1.fc5 > 0:1.3.4-2.1.fc6) FE6 > FE7 (0:1.3.5-1.fc6 > 0:1.3.4-2.1.fc6) yaz FE5 > FE7 (0:2.1.36-1.fc5 > 0:2.1.26-1.1.fc6) FE6 > FE7 (0:2.1.36-1.fc6 > 0:2.1.26-1.1.fc6) mdehaan AT redhat.com: cobbler FE5 > FE7 (0:0.3.1-1.fc5 > 0:0.2.8-1.fc6) FE6 > FE7 (0:0.3.1-1.fc6 > 0:0.2.8-1.fc6) koan FE5 > FE7 (0:0.2.3-1.fc5 > 0:0.2.1-1.fc6) FE6 > FE7 (0:0.2.4-1.fc6 > 0:0.2.1-1.fc6) paul AT all-the-johnsons.co.uk: anjuta FE6 > FE7 (1:2.0.2-9.fc6 > 1:2.0.2-8.fc6) monodevelop FE6 > FE7 (0:0.12-6.fc6 > 0:0.12-5.fc6) petersen AT redhat.com: m17n-db FE3 > FC5 (0:1.3.3-1.fc3 > 0:1.3.3-1) FE4 > FC5 (0:1.3.3-1.fc4 > 0:1.3.3-1) thomas AT apestaart.org: flumotion FE5 > FE6 (0:0.2.2-1.fc5 > 0:0.2.1-3.fc6) FE5 > FE7 (0:0.2.2-1.fc5 > 0:0.2.1-3.fc6) zcerza AT redhat.com: dogtail FE5 > FC6 (0:0.6.0-2.fc5 > 0:0.6.0-1.fc6) FE5 > FC7 (0:0.6.0-2.fc5 > 0:0.6.0-1.fc6) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- anacron: UNKNOWN OWNER (possibly Core package) FC5-updates > FC6 (0:2.3-42.fc5 > 0:2.3-41.fc6) anjuta: paul AT all-the-johnsons.co.uk FE6 > FE7 (1:2.0.2-9.fc6 > 1:2.0.2-8.fc6) checkpolicy: UNKNOWN OWNER (possibly Core package) FC5-updates > FC6 (0:1.32-1.fc5 > 0:1.30.12-1) FC5-updates > FC7 (0:1.32-1.fc5 > 0:1.30.12-1) cobbler: mdehaan AT redhat.com FE5 > FE7 (0:0.3.1-1.fc5 > 0:0.2.8-1.fc6) FE6 > FE7 (0:0.3.1-1.fc6 > 0:0.2.8-1.fc6) cvs2svn: icon AT fedoraproject.org FE5 > FE7 (0:1.5.0-1.fc5 > 0:1.4.0-2.fc6) FE6 > FE7 (0:1.5.0-1.fc6 > 0:1.4.0-2.fc6) device-mapper: UNKNOWN OWNER (possibly Core package) FC4-updates > FC5 (0:1.02.07-2.0 > 0:1.02.02-3.2) dogtail: zcerza AT redhat.com FE5 > FC6 (0:0.6.0-2.fc5 > 0:0.6.0-1.fc6) FE5 > FC7 (0:0.6.0-2.fc5 > 0:0.6.0-1.fc6) dvdisaster: dmitry AT butskoy.name FE6 > FE7 (0:0.70.2-2.fc6 > 0:0.70.2-1.fc6) eclipse-changelog: UNKNOWN OWNER (possibly Core package) FC6-updates > FC7 (1:2.3.3-2.fc6 > 1:2.3.3-1.fc7) flumotion: thomas AT apestaart.org FE5 > FE6 (0:0.2.2-1.fc5 > 0:0.2.1-3.fc6) FE5 > FE7 (0:0.2.2-1.fc5 > 0:0.2.1-3.fc6) gnome-netstatus: UNKNOWN OWNER (possibly Core package) FC6 > FC7 (0:2.12.0-5.1 > 0:2.12.0-5.fc7) kbibtex: ch.nolte AT fh-wolfenbuettel.de FE4 > FE6 (0:0.1.5-3.fc4 > 0:0.1.5-1.fc6) FE4 > FE7 (0:0.1.5-3.fc4 > 0:0.1.5-2.fc7) FE5 > FE6 (0:0.1.5-3.fc5 > 0:0.1.5-1.fc6) FE5 > FE7 (0:0.1.5-3.fc5 > 0:0.1.5-2.fc7) koan: mdehaan AT redhat.com FE5 > FE7 (0:0.2.3-1.fc5 > 0:0.2.1-1.fc6) FE6 > FE7 (0:0.2.4-1.fc6 > 0:0.2.1-1.fc6) libopensync-plugin-irmc: andreas.bierfert AT lowlatency.de FE4 > FE5 (0:0.19-1.fc4 > 0:0.18-6.fc5) libsepol: UNKNOWN OWNER (possibly Core package) FC5-updates > FC7 (0:1.15.1-1.fc5 > 0:1.15.1-1) FC6-updates > FC7 (0:1.15.1-1.fc6 > 0:1.15.1-1) libvirt: UNKNOWN OWNER (possibly Core package) FC5-updates > FC6 (0:0.1.7-2.FC5 > 0:0.1.7-2) lvm2: UNKNOWN OWNER (possibly Core package) FC4-updates > FC5 (0:2.02.06-1.0.fc4 > 0:2.02.01-1.2.1) m17n-db: petersen AT redhat.com FE3 > FC5 (0:1.3.3-1.fc3 > 0:1.3.3-1) FE4 > FC5 (0:1.3.3-1.fc4 > 0:1.3.3-1) mdadm: UNKNOWN OWNER (possibly Core package) FC6 > FC7 (0:2.5.4-2.fc6 > 0:2.5.4-1.fc7) monodevelop: paul AT all-the-johnsons.co.uk FE6 > FE7 (0:0.12-6.fc6 > 0:0.12-5.fc6) mozilla: UNKNOWN OWNER (possibly Core package) FL3-updates > FC4-updates (37:1.7.13-1.3.1.legacy > 37:1.7.13-1.1.fc4) FL3-updates > FC5-updates (37:1.7.13-1.3.1.legacy > 37:1.7.13-1.1.fc5) php-json: fedora AT theholbrooks.org FE6 > FE7 (0:1.2.1-5.fc6 > 0:1.2.1-3.fc6) php-shout: fedora AT theholbrooks.org FE6 > FE7 (0:0.3.1-7.fc6 > 0:0.3.1-6.fc6) poedit: icon AT fedoraproject.org FE5 > FE7 (0:1.3.5-1.fc5 > 0:1.3.4-2.1.fc6) FE6 > FE7 (0:1.3.5-1.fc6 > 0:1.3.4-2.1.fc6) quagga: UNKNOWN OWNER (possibly Core package) FC4-updates > FC5-updates (0:0.98.6-1.fc4 > 0:0.98.6-1.FC5) traceroute: UNKNOWN OWNER (possibly Core package) FC5 > FC7 (2:1.0.4-1.2 > 0:2.0.1-1) FC6 > FC7 (2:1.0.4-2 > 0:2.0.1-1) vnc: UNKNOWN OWNER (possibly Core package) FC6-updates > FC7 (0:4.1.2-5.fc6 > 0:4.1.2-4.fc7) wine: andreas.bierfert AT lowlatency.de FE3 > FE7 (0:0.9.24-1.fc3 > 0:0.9.23-1.fc6) FE4 > FE7 (0:0.9.24-1.fc4 > 0:0.9.23-1.fc6) FE5 > FE7 (0:0.9.24-1.fc5 > 0:0.9.23-1.fc6) FE6 > FE7 (0:0.9.24-1.fc6 > 0:0.9.23-1.fc6) xsane: UNKNOWN OWNER (possibly Core package) FC5-updates > FC7 (0:0.991-4.fc5 > 0:0.991-3.fc7) FC6-updates > FC7 (0:0.991-4.fc6 > 0:0.991-3.fc7) yaz: icon AT fedoraproject.org FE5 > FE7 (0:2.1.36-1.fc5 > 0:2.1.26-1.1.fc6) FE6 > FE7 (0:2.1.36-1.fc6 > 0:2.1.26-1.1.fc6) From rc040203 at freenet.de Mon Oct 30 16:25:46 2006 From: rc040203 at freenet.de (Ralf Corsepius) Date: Mon, 30 Oct 2006 17:25:46 +0100 Subject: [Bug 178162] Review Request: libgeotiff In-Reply-To: <200610301518.k9UFIl2L012360@bugzilla.redhat.com> References: <200610301518.k9UFIl2L012360@bugzilla.redhat.com> Message-ID: <1162225546.6667.94.camel@mccallum.corsepiu.local> On Mon, 2006-10-30 at 10:18 -0500, bugzilla at redhat.com wrote: > https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=178162 > > > tibbs at math.uh.edu changed: > > What |Removed |Added > ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- > Status|ASSIGNED |CLOSED > Resolution| |NOTABUG > OtherBugsDependingO|163776 |201449 > nThis| | > > > > > ------- Additional Comments From tibbs at math.uh.edu 2006-10-30 10:18 EST ------- > There are already Fedora repositories that would permit such software. Of > course, nothing in Extras can depend on them. > > It is indeed unfortunate, but it is not the fault of Fedora that the upstream > data is not licensed in a sufficiently free manner. Of cause Fedora also takes it share about this: It's the politics behind Fedora which prevent "legal and free for non-commercial use" packages to be adopted by Fedora and which forces packagers to resort to 3rd parties. May-be it would be more helpful for FE (FESCO) to re-consider their attitude on "non-free repos" in FE. Ralf From jwboyer at jdub.homelinux.org Mon Oct 30 16:34:12 2006 From: jwboyer at jdub.homelinux.org (Josh Boyer) Date: Mon, 30 Oct 2006 10:34:12 -0600 Subject: [Bug 178162] Review Request: libgeotiff In-Reply-To: <1162225546.6667.94.camel@mccallum.corsepiu.local> References: <200610301518.k9UFIl2L012360@bugzilla.redhat.com> <1162225546.6667.94.camel@mccallum.corsepiu.local> Message-ID: <1162226052.4198.0.camel@zod.rchland.ibm.com> On Mon, 2006-10-30 at 17:25 +0100, Ralf Corsepius wrote: > On Mon, 2006-10-30 at 10:18 -0500, bugzilla at redhat.com wrote: > > > > ------- Additional Comments From tibbs at math.uh.edu 2006-10-30 10:18 EST ------- > > There are already Fedora repositories that would permit such software. Of > > course, nothing in Extras can depend on them. > > > > It is indeed unfortunate, but it is not the fault of Fedora that the upstream > > data is not licensed in a sufficiently free manner. > > Of cause Fedora also takes it share about this: > > It's the politics behind Fedora which prevent "legal and free for > non-commercial use" packages to be adopted by Fedora and which forces > packagers to resort to 3rd parties. May-be it would be more helpful for > FE (FESCO) to re-consider their attitude on "non-free repos" in FE. No. josh From tibbs at math.uh.edu Mon Oct 30 16:40:28 2006 From: tibbs at math.uh.edu (Jason L Tibbitts III) Date: Mon, 30 Oct 2006 10:40:28 -0600 Subject: [Bug 178162] Review Request: libgeotiff In-Reply-To: <1162225546.6667.94.camel@mccallum.corsepiu.local> (Ralf Corsepius's message of "Mon, 30 Oct 2006 17:25:46 +0100") References: <200610301518.k9UFIl2L012360@bugzilla.redhat.com> <1162225546.6667.94.camel@mccallum.corsepiu.local> Message-ID: >>>>> "RC" == Ralf Corsepius writes: RC> It's the politics behind Fedora which prevent "legal and free for RC> non-commercial use" packages to be adopted by Fedora and which RC> forces packagers to resort to 3rd parties. Bull. The whole point is to produce a distro that is free enough that someone could, for example, sell it. The package in question cannot be sold. The conflict with the goals of the Fedora project is explicit. RC> May-be it would be more helpful for FE (FESCO) to re-consider RC> their attitude on "non-free repos" in FE. FESCo wouldn't be the one to decide on a fundamental change in the basic direction of the project. Try the Fedora Board instead, if you really feel this is a worthwhile goal. - J< From rc040203 at freenet.de Mon Oct 30 16:49:18 2006 From: rc040203 at freenet.de (Ralf Corsepius) Date: Mon, 30 Oct 2006 17:49:18 +0100 Subject: [Bug 178162] Review Request: libgeotiff In-Reply-To: <1162226052.4198.0.camel@zod.rchland.ibm.com> References: <200610301518.k9UFIl2L012360@bugzilla.redhat.com> <1162225546.6667.94.camel@mccallum.corsepiu.local> <1162226052.4198.0.camel@zod.rchland.ibm.com> Message-ID: <1162226958.6667.97.camel@mccallum.corsepiu.local> On Mon, 2006-10-30 at 10:34 -0600, Josh Boyer wrote: > On Mon, 2006-10-30 at 17:25 +0100, Ralf Corsepius wrote: > > On Mon, 2006-10-30 at 10:18 -0500, bugzilla at redhat.com wrote: > > > > > > ------- Additional Comments From tibbs at math.uh.edu 2006-10-30 10:18 EST ------- > > > There are already Fedora repositories that would permit such software. Of > > > course, nothing in Extras can depend on them. > > > > > > It is indeed unfortunate, but it is not the fault of Fedora that the upstream > > > data is not licensed in a sufficiently free manner. > > > > Of cause Fedora also takes it share about this: > > > > It's the politics behind Fedora which prevent "legal and free for > > non-commercial use" packages to be adopted by Fedora and which forces > > packagers to resort to 3rd parties. May-be it would be more helpful for > > FE (FESCO) to re-consider their attitude on "non-free repos" in FE. > > No. Your open mind is always a pleasure to experience. Ralf From jwboyer at jdub.homelinux.org Mon Oct 30 16:56:43 2006 From: jwboyer at jdub.homelinux.org (Josh Boyer) Date: Mon, 30 Oct 2006 10:56:43 -0600 Subject: [Bug 178162] Review Request: libgeotiff In-Reply-To: <1162226958.6667.97.camel@mccallum.corsepiu.local> References: <200610301518.k9UFIl2L012360@bugzilla.redhat.com> <1162225546.6667.94.camel@mccallum.corsepiu.local> <1162226052.4198.0.camel@zod.rchland.ibm.com> <1162226958.6667.97.camel@mccallum.corsepiu.local> Message-ID: <1162227403.4198.2.camel@zod.rchland.ibm.com> On Mon, 2006-10-30 at 17:49 +0100, Ralf Corsepius wrote: > On Mon, 2006-10-30 at 10:34 -0600, Josh Boyer wrote: > > On Mon, 2006-10-30 at 17:25 +0100, Ralf Corsepius wrote: > > > On Mon, 2006-10-30 at 10:18 -0500, bugzilla at redhat.com wrote: > > > > > > > > ------- Additional Comments From tibbs at math.uh.edu 2006-10-30 10:18 EST ------- > > > > There are already Fedora repositories that would permit such software. Of > > > > course, nothing in Extras can depend on them. > > > > > > > > It is indeed unfortunate, but it is not the fault of Fedora that the upstream > > > > data is not licensed in a sufficiently free manner. > > > > > > Of cause Fedora also takes it share about this: > > > > > > It's the politics behind Fedora which prevent "legal and free for > > > non-commercial use" packages to be adopted by Fedora and which forces > > > packagers to resort to 3rd parties. May-be it would be more helpful for > > > FE (FESCO) to re-consider their attitude on "non-free repos" in FE. > > > > No. > > Your open mind is always a pleasure to experience. Thanks :). For a more verbose denial, see Jason's response. josh From rc040203 at freenet.de Mon Oct 30 17:00:31 2006 From: rc040203 at freenet.de (Ralf Corsepius) Date: Mon, 30 Oct 2006 18:00:31 +0100 Subject: [Bug 178162] Review Request: libgeotiff In-Reply-To: References: <200610301518.k9UFIl2L012360@bugzilla.redhat.com> <1162225546.6667.94.camel@mccallum.corsepiu.local> Message-ID: <1162227632.6667.108.camel@mccallum.corsepiu.local> On Mon, 2006-10-30 at 10:40 -0600, Jason L Tibbitts III wrote: > >>>>> "RC" == Ralf Corsepius writes: > > RC> It's the politics behind Fedora which prevent "legal and free for > RC> non-commercial use" packages to be adopted by Fedora and which > RC> forces packagers to resort to 3rd parties. > > Bull. The whole point is to produce a distro that is free enough that > someone could, for example, sell it. The package in question cannot > be sold. The conflict with the goals of the Fedora project is > explicit. Well, the majority of Linux users are universities and educational institutions. The current FE policy closes out packages like this one. I can't find anything helpful in this FE attitude. Even Debian isn't has non-free repos. > RC> May-be it would be more helpful for FE (FESCO) to re-consider > RC> their attitude on "non-free repos" in FE. > > FESCo wouldn't be the one to decide on a fundamental change in the > basic direction of the project. Nobody is talking about changing Fedora. I am talking about adding another, separate repo, people could add as part of FE (Non-free Fedora Extras) Ralf From tibbs at math.uh.edu Mon Oct 30 17:19:18 2006 From: tibbs at math.uh.edu (Jason L Tibbitts III) Date: Mon, 30 Oct 2006 11:19:18 -0600 Subject: [Bug 178162] Review Request: libgeotiff In-Reply-To: <1162227632.6667.108.camel@mccallum.corsepiu.local> (Ralf Corsepius's message of "Mon, 30 Oct 2006 18:00:31 +0100") References: <200610301518.k9UFIl2L012360@bugzilla.redhat.com> <1162225546.6667.94.camel@mccallum.corsepiu.local> <1162227632.6667.108.camel@mccallum.corsepiu.local> Message-ID: >>>>> "RC" == Ralf Corsepius writes: RC> Nobody is talking about changing Fedora. I am talking about adding RC> another, separate repo, people could add as part of FE (Non-free RC> Fedora Extras) Well, now you are, but you certainly didn't make that clear. Since you seem to prefer arguing with, well, anyone instead of having a clear and comprehensive discussion, let me try to reformulate your proposal: Add a second repository, managed under the umbrella of FESCo, which can hold packages that violate the basic tenets of the Fedora project in some way (specifically those prohibiding sale for profit) but which still permit us the freedoms of redistribution, reuse of source, modification, and others necessary for the reasonable maintanence of the project. That's at least a starting point for further discussion. Perhaps you could flesh out a more complete proposal in the Wiki and present it to FESCo for further discussion in a more appropriate place than the -maintainers mailing list? - J< From rc040203 at freenet.de Mon Oct 30 18:13:20 2006 From: rc040203 at freenet.de (Ralf Corsepius) Date: Mon, 30 Oct 2006 19:13:20 +0100 Subject: [Bug 178162] Review Request: libgeotiff In-Reply-To: References: <200610301518.k9UFIl2L012360@bugzilla.redhat.com> <1162225546.6667.94.camel@mccallum.corsepiu.local> <1162227632.6667.108.camel@mccallum.corsepiu.local> Message-ID: <1162232000.6667.123.camel@mccallum.corsepiu.local> On Mon, 2006-10-30 at 11:19 -0600, Jason L Tibbitts III wrote: > >>>>> "RC" == Ralf Corsepius writes: > > RC> Nobody is talking about changing Fedora. I am talking about adding > RC> another, separate repo, people could add as part of FE (Non-free > RC> Fedora Extras) > > Well, now you are, but you certainly didn't make that clear. > > Since you seem to prefer arguing with, well, anyone Actually I am only arguing with one party "Fedora Leadership", on always the same subject "Their (IMO narrow-minded) notion on OpenSource". Ralf From jima at beer.tclug.org Mon Oct 30 18:21:59 2006 From: jima at beer.tclug.org (Jima) Date: Mon, 30 Oct 2006 12:21:59 -0600 (CST) Subject: [Bug 178162] Review Request: libgeotiff In-Reply-To: <1162232000.6667.123.camel@mccallum.corsepiu.local> References: <200610301518.k9UFIl2L012360@bugzilla.redhat.com> <1162225546.6667.94.camel@mccallum.corsepiu.local> <1162227632.6667.108.camel@mccallum.corsepiu.local> <1162232000.6667.123.camel@mccallum.corsepiu.local> Message-ID: On Mon, 30 Oct 2006, Ralf Corsepius wrote: > Actually I am only arguing with one party "Fedora Leadership", > on always the same subject "Their (IMO narrow-minded) notion on > OpenSource". Okay. In that case, when the next election comes around, nominate yourself. If you find yourself constantly at odds with so-called "Fedora Leadership," then take a stand and try to become part of the solution. Remember, Fedora is largely self-governed. Jima From jwboyer at jdub.homelinux.org Mon Oct 30 18:31:16 2006 From: jwboyer at jdub.homelinux.org (Josh Boyer) Date: Mon, 30 Oct 2006 12:31:16 -0600 Subject: [Bug 178162] Review Request: libgeotiff In-Reply-To: <1162232000.6667.123.camel@mccallum.corsepiu.local> References: <200610301518.k9UFIl2L012360@bugzilla.redhat.com> <1162225546.6667.94.camel@mccallum.corsepiu.local> <1162227632.6667.108.camel@mccallum.corsepiu.local> <1162232000.6667.123.camel@mccallum.corsepiu.local> Message-ID: <1162233076.4748.9.camel@zod.rchland.ibm.com> On Mon, 2006-10-30 at 19:13 +0100, Ralf Corsepius wrote: > On Mon, 2006-10-30 at 11:19 -0600, Jason L Tibbitts III wrote: > > >>>>> "RC" == Ralf Corsepius writes: > > > > RC> Nobody is talking about changing Fedora. I am talking about adding > > RC> another, separate repo, people could add as part of FE (Non-free > > RC> Fedora Extras) > > > > Well, now you are, but you certainly didn't make that clear. > > > > Since you seem to prefer arguing with, well, anyone > Actually I am only arguing with one party "Fedora Leadership", > on always the same subject "Their (IMO narrow-minded) notion on > OpenSource". OpenSource and Free Software are not the same thing. Ask RMS if you don't believe me. But that is a complete side issue. Just as your assertions of "most users are universities and educational institutions..." are. Anyway, what does a "non-free Fedora Extras" repository buy you over just using on of the other third party repositories that already cover this? I see no difference at all, other than a blessing from the Fedora project which I (personally) don't think it would deserve. Seriously, what benefit would it have? josh From tibbs at math.uh.edu Mon Oct 30 18:44:30 2006 From: tibbs at math.uh.edu (Jason L Tibbitts III) Date: Mon, 30 Oct 2006 12:44:30 -0600 Subject: [Bug 178162] Review Request: libgeotiff In-Reply-To: <1162232000.6667.123.camel@mccallum.corsepiu.local> (Ralf Corsepius's message of "Mon, 30 Oct 2006 19:13:20 +0100") References: <200610301518.k9UFIl2L012360@bugzilla.redhat.com> <1162225546.6667.94.camel@mccallum.corsepiu.local> <1162227632.6667.108.camel@mccallum.corsepiu.local> <1162232000.6667.123.camel@mccallum.corsepiu.local> Message-ID: >>>>> "RC" == Ralf Corsepius writes: RC> Actually I am only arguing with one party "Fedora Leadership", on RC> always the same subject "Their (IMO narrow-minded) notion on RC> OpenSource". I'm having difficulty interpreting that in any way other than a validation of what I wrote. Did you wish to discuss anything at all in a constructive manner and perhaps make some progress on the issue, or do you just want to complain? All signs point to the latter, as you seem to have simply ignored the rest of my comments in an attempt to find something to argue with. - J< From j.w.r.degoede at hhs.nl Mon Oct 30 19:04:14 2006 From: j.w.r.degoede at hhs.nl (Hans de Goede) Date: Mon, 30 Oct 2006 20:04:14 +0100 Subject: FE non free repo In-Reply-To: References: <200610301518.k9UFIl2L012360@bugzilla.redhat.com> <1162225546.6667.94.camel@mccallum.corsepiu.local> <1162227632.6667.108.camel@mccallum.corsepiu.local> Message-ID: <45464CAE.2090709@hhs.nl> Jason L Tibbitts III wrote: > Add a second repository, managed under the umbrella of FESCo, which > can hold packages that violate the basic tenets of the Fedora project > in some way (specifically those prohibiding sale for profit) but which > still permit us the freedoms of redistribution, reuse of source, > modification, and others necessary for the reasonable maintanence of > the project. > Unfortunately Ralf doesn't take this offer by you seriously, but I think its a great idea and I couldn't have worded it better myself. There is quite a bit of software out there which gives one the all important rights to look under the hood, to also muck under the hood (not only look but also touch!) and even the right to redistribute the result as long as its not for a profit. To me such software is for most everyday uses 99% as free as truely free software and I think such a repo would be a welcome add-on to the Fedora "space". I do think btw this repo shouldn't use the Fedora name, I would like it to use the Fedora infrastructure, and maybe even be added to Fedora-release (disabled by default), but it doesn't deserve to use the Fedora name :) Regards, Hans p.s. Jason, feel free to take this discussion to a more public list, but I didn't want to send the above quote of you to a public list out of context. From bugs.michael at gmx.net Mon Oct 30 19:50:21 2006 From: bugs.michael at gmx.net (Michael Schwendt) Date: Mon, 30 Oct 2006 20:50:21 +0100 Subject: [Bug 178162] Review Request: libgeotiff In-Reply-To: References: <200610301518.k9UFIl2L012360@bugzilla.redhat.com> <1162225546.6667.94.camel@mccallum.corsepiu.local> <1162227632.6667.108.camel@mccallum.corsepiu.local> <1162232000.6667.123.camel@mccallum.corsepiu.local> Message-ID: <20061030205021.f6701e03.bugs.michael@gmx.net> On Mon, 30 Oct 2006 12:21:59 -0600 (CST), Jima wrote: > On Mon, 30 Oct 2006, Ralf Corsepius wrote: > > Actually I am only arguing with one party "Fedora Leadership", > > on always the same subject "Their (IMO narrow-minded) notion on > > OpenSource". > > Okay. In that case, when the next election comes around, nominate > yourself. If you find yourself constantly at odds with so-called "Fedora > Leadership," then take a stand and try to become part of the solution. > Remember, Fedora is largely self-governed. Interesting comment, albeit somewhat over the top. Do remember that with the last FESCo "election" primarily we just filled vacant seats in a very half-hearted and controversial way. Before the next election a lot must happen. The FE developer community needs means to measure whether they are happy with the elected representatives. That is not possible when FESCo's decision-finding process is not documented, when some FESCo members either abstain from voting often or always [or because they are absent from a high number of public meetings], and when this leads to sort of anonymous FESCo decisions (where only with high effort or luck you find nothing more than a few +1/-1 votes in meeting-minutes). At the topic of FESCo, just a few days ago I was surprised that I could not find the FESCo members' mission statements anymore. It turned out the page was deleted without any (or without an easy-to-find) replacement: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Extras/SteeringCommittee/Nominations?action=recall&rev=27 From alan at redhat.com Mon Oct 30 20:00:03 2006 From: alan at redhat.com (Alan Cox) Date: Mon, 30 Oct 2006 15:00:03 -0500 Subject: FE non free repo In-Reply-To: <45464CAE.2090709@hhs.nl> References: <200610301518.k9UFIl2L012360@bugzilla.redhat.com> <1162225546.6667.94.camel@mccallum.corsepiu.local> <1162227632.6667.108.camel@mccallum.corsepiu.local> <45464CAE.2090709@hhs.nl> Message-ID: <20061030200003.GA5578@devserv.devel.redhat.com> On Mon, Oct 30, 2006 at 08:04:14PM +0100, Hans de Goede wrote: > I do think btw this repo shouldn't use the Fedora name, I would like it > to use the Fedora infrastructure, and maybe even be added to > Fedora-release (disabled by default), but it doesn't deserve to use the > Fedora name :) There is another important reason such a non-Fedora repository might be useful - there is a huge amount of material available under creative commons variants which is not software but is redistributable although not in the "free software" definition. The number and quantity of such data sets is only going to grow, and unlike software there are many where the logic of licensing is not the same as software (eg fiction books) Alan From tcallawa at redhat.com Mon Oct 30 20:36:07 2006 From: tcallawa at redhat.com (Tom 'spot' Callaway) Date: Mon, 30 Oct 2006 14:36:07 -0600 Subject: FE non free repo In-Reply-To: <20061030200003.GA5578@devserv.devel.redhat.com> References: <200610301518.k9UFIl2L012360@bugzilla.redhat.com> <1162225546.6667.94.camel@mccallum.corsepiu.local> <1162227632.6667.108.camel@mccallum.corsepiu.local> <45464CAE.2090709@hhs.nl> <20061030200003.GA5578@devserv.devel.redhat.com> Message-ID: <1162240567.7933.213.camel@dhcp-32-122.ord.redhat.com> On Mon, 2006-10-30 at 15:00 -0500, Alan Cox wrote: > On Mon, Oct 30, 2006 at 08:04:14PM +0100, Hans de Goede wrote: > > I do think btw this repo shouldn't use the Fedora name, I would like it > > to use the Fedora infrastructure, and maybe even be added to > > Fedora-release (disabled by default), but it doesn't deserve to use the > > Fedora name :) > > There is another important reason such a non-Fedora repository might be > useful - there is a huge amount of material available under creative > commons variants which is not software but is redistributable although not > in the "free software" definition. > > The number and quantity of such data sets is only going to grow, and unlike > software there are many where the logic of licensing is not the same as > software (eg fiction books) The CC Attribution and CC Attribution-Sharealike licenses are considered Free but GPL-Incompatible by the FSF. ~spot -- Tom "spot" Callaway || Red Hat || Fedora || Aurora || GPG ID: 93054260 "We must not confuse dissent with disloyalty. We must remember always that accusation is not proof and that conviction depends upon evidence and due process of law. We will not walk in fear, one of another. We will not be driven by fear into an age of unreason, if we dig deep in our history and our doctrine, and remember that we are not descended from fearful men -- not from men who feared to write, to speak, to associate and to defend causes that were, for the moment, unpopular." -- Edward R. Murrow, March 9, 1954 From triad at df.lth.se Mon Oct 30 22:16:37 2006 From: triad at df.lth.se (Linus Walleij) Date: Mon, 30 Oct 2006 23:16:37 +0100 (CET) Subject: FE non free repo In-Reply-To: <1162240567.7933.213.camel@dhcp-32-122.ord.redhat.com> References: <200610301518.k9UFIl2L012360@bugzilla.redhat.com> <1162225546.6667.94.camel@mccallum.corsepiu.local> <1162227632.6667.108.camel@mccallum.corsepiu.local> <45464CAE.2090709@hhs.nl> <20061030200003.GA5578@devserv.devel.redhat.com> <1162240567.7933.213.camel@dhcp-32-122.ord.redhat.com> Message-ID: On Mon, 30 Oct 2006, Tom 'spot' Callaway wrote: > The CC Attribution and CC Attribution-Sharealike licenses are considered > Free but GPL-Incompatible by the FSF. Even FSF:s own GNU Free Documentation License, GFDL, is Free and GPL-incompatible I believe. They're just for different things. Linus From rc040203 at freenet.de Tue Oct 31 05:03:13 2006 From: rc040203 at freenet.de (Ralf Corsepius) Date: Tue, 31 Oct 2006 06:03:13 +0100 Subject: [Bug 178162] Review Request: libgeotiff In-Reply-To: References: <200610301518.k9UFIl2L012360@bugzilla.redhat.com> <1162225546.6667.94.camel@mccallum.corsepiu.local> <1162227632.6667.108.camel@mccallum.corsepiu.local> <1162232000.6667.123.camel@mccallum.corsepiu.local> Message-ID: <1162270994.6667.186.camel@mccallum.corsepiu.local> On Mon, 2006-10-30 at 12:44 -0600, Jason L Tibbitts III wrote: > >>>>> "RC" == Ralf Corsepius writes: > > RC> Actually I am only arguing with one party "Fedora Leadership", on > RC> always the same subject "Their (IMO narrow-minded) notion on > RC> OpenSource". > > I'm having difficulty interpreting that in any way other than a > validation of what I wrote. Did you wish to discuss anything at all > in a constructive manner and perhaps make some progress on the issue, > or do you just want to complain? Both. I wanted FESCO, FPB or whose job at "Fedora Leadership" this might be, to pick up this topic/issue and to process it. Apart from you having shot the messenger in a knee-jerk reflex, due to a misunderstanding first, you did. Ralf From rc040203 at freenet.de Tue Oct 31 05:08:41 2006 From: rc040203 at freenet.de (Ralf Corsepius) Date: Tue, 31 Oct 2006 06:08:41 +0100 Subject: FE non free repo In-Reply-To: <45464CAE.2090709@hhs.nl> References: <200610301518.k9UFIl2L012360@bugzilla.redhat.com> <1162225546.6667.94.camel@mccallum.corsepiu.local> <1162227632.6667.108.camel@mccallum.corsepiu.local> <45464CAE.2090709@hhs.nl> Message-ID: <1162271321.6667.193.camel@mccallum.corsepiu.local> On Mon, 2006-10-30 at 20:04 +0100, Hans de Goede wrote: > Jason L Tibbitts III wrote: > > Add a second repository, managed under the umbrella of FESCo, which > > can hold packages that violate the basic tenets of the Fedora project > > in some way (specifically those prohibiding sale for profit) but which > > still permit us the freedoms of redistribution, reuse of source, > > modification, and others necessary for the reasonable maintanence of > > the project. > > > > Unfortunately Ralf doesn't take this offer by you seriously, Sorry, I did take this offer seriously, too seriously to be commented on in an add-hoc knee-jerk response to an email which I received at a "piss-bad timing" (19:00+ CET) - there also is a real life away from computers ;) > but I think > its a great idea and I couldn't have worded it better myself. Well, exactly this is the question: Which kind of SW should be allowed to go into such a repo? I would define it by a simple negated definition: "OSS packages which fit into Fedora's criteria, except that they do NOT fit into the OSI definition of "free SW"." [TBD: Check where this "free for non-commercial use" exclusion in Fedora actually originates from, the OSI or RH/Fedora.] > There is quite a bit of software out there which gives one the all > important rights to look under the hood, to also muck under the hood > (not only look but also touch!) and even the right to redistribute the > result as long as its not for a profit. > > To me such software is for most everyday uses 99% as free as truely free > software and I think such a repo would be a welcome add-on to the Fedora > "space". Exactly - The same situation as I am facing. The Fedora/OSI definition of "free SW" doesn't match with my "personal notion of OSS" nor with the legal situation applicable to me, nor does it fit into my demands. To the contrary, Fedora's current policy forces packagers to functionally cripple/degrade packages in FE, because some components, some packages use underneath, do not fit into Fedora's current policy, or to refrain from packaging packages for Fedora. IMO, this is one main cause, why at least some 3rd party repos exist at all - In short: Fedora doesn't match their demands. If Fedora had a "non-free" repo, you'd probably see me wanting to move packages from FE to "non-free FE" or packages to appear in both repos (one "OSI-compliant"/"functionally crippled" variant in FE - and one "functionally extended variant" in "non-free FE"). > I do think btw this repo shouldn't use the Fedora name, I would like it > to use the Fedora infrastructure, and maybe even be added to > Fedora-release (disabled by default), but it doesn't deserve to use the > Fedora name :) Well, IMO it should use the Fedora name, to give it an "official outlook/painting/branding" - Not naming it Fedora would make it a 3rd class citizen - Remember, some people already have problems in accepting "Fedora", because it's not branded "RedHat" and consider it 2rd class citizen, therefore (justified or not). Ralf From j.w.r.degoede at hhs.nl Tue Oct 31 06:15:02 2006 From: j.w.r.degoede at hhs.nl (Hans de Goede) Date: Tue, 31 Oct 2006 07:15:02 +0100 Subject: FE non free repo In-Reply-To: <1162271321.6667.193.camel@mccallum.corsepiu.local> References: <200610301518.k9UFIl2L012360@bugzilla.redhat.com> <1162225546.6667.94.camel@mccallum.corsepiu.local> <1162227632.6667.108.camel@mccallum.corsepiu.local> <45464CAE.2090709@hhs.nl> <1162271321.6667.193.camel@mccallum.corsepiu.local> Message-ID: <4546E9E6.1040500@hhs.nl> Ralf Corsepius wrote: > On Mon, 2006-10-30 at 20:04 +0100, Hans de Goede wrote: >> Jason L Tibbitts III wrote: >>> Add a second repository, managed under the umbrella of FESCo, which >>> can hold packages that violate the basic tenets of the Fedora project >>> in some way (specifically those prohibiding sale for profit) but which >>> still permit us the freedoms of redistribution, reuse of source, >>> modification, and others necessary for the reasonable maintanence of >>> the project. >>> >> Unfortunately Ralf doesn't take this offer by you seriously, > Sorry, I did take this offer seriously, too seriously to be commented on > in an add-hoc knee-jerk response Thats very good to hear! If you're working on a proposal let me know if I can help. >> but I think >> its a great idea and I couldn't have worded it better myself. > Well, exactly this is the question: Which kind of SW should be allowed > to go into such a repo? > > I would define it by a simple negated definition: > "OSS packages which fit into Fedora's criteria, except that they do NOT > fit into the OSI definition of "free SW"." > I would define it as fits into Fedora's criteria except for a not for commercial use / financial gain clause. Perhaps later we find some other software with clauses which have a similar low impact on every day use by a large group of our users (those users who do not wish to base a product of Fedora) and then we can add those clauses to the exception list, but for now just having a repo which allows this free except for no commercial use software would be a big step forward. > >> There is quite a bit of software out there which gives one the all >> important rights to look under the hood, to also muck under the hood >> (not only look but also touch!) and even the right to redistribute the >> result as long as its not for a profit. >> >> To me such software is for most everyday uses 99% as free as truely free >> software and I think such a repo would be a welcome add-on to the Fedora >> "space". > Exactly - The same situation as I am facing. The Fedora/OSI definition > of "free SW" doesn't match with my "personal notion of OSS" nor with the > legal situation applicable to me, nor does it fit into my demands. > Agreed, although I think that promoting 100% free software is important and sometimes if politely asked authors are willing to drop such a no commercial use clause. I've had several successes (and failures) asking todo so for various games. > To the contrary, Fedora's current policy forces packagers to > functionally cripple/degrade packages in FE, because some components, > some packages use underneath, do not fit into Fedora's current policy, > or to refrain from packaging packages for Fedora. IMO, this is one main > cause, why at least some 3rd party repos exist at all - In short: > Fedora doesn't match their demands. > > > If Fedora had a "non-free" repo, you'd probably see me wanting to move > packages from FE to "non-free FE" or packages to appear in both repos > (one "OSI-compliant"/"functionally crippled" variant in FE - and one > "functionally extended variant" in "non-free FE"). > I wouldn't want to see packages moved unless the added functionality is really big, and this cannot be easily fixed with using dlopen. (And yes I'm willing to write a few dlopen patches where necessary). Regards, Hans From fedora at leemhuis.info Tue Oct 31 09:17:54 2006 From: fedora at leemhuis.info (Thorsten Leemhuis) Date: Tue, 31 Oct 2006 10:17:54 +0100 Subject: FESCo critique (was: Re: [Bug 178162] Review Request: libgeotiff) In-Reply-To: <20061030205021.f6701e03.bugs.michael@gmx.net> References: <200610301518.k9UFIl2L012360@bugzilla.redhat.com> <1162225546.6667.94.camel@mccallum.corsepiu.local> <1162227632.6667.108.camel@mccallum.corsepiu.local> <1162232000.6667.123.camel@mccallum.corsepiu.local> <20061030205021.f6701e03.bugs.michael@gmx.net> Message-ID: <454714C2.3040603@leemhuis.info> Hi All! Michael Schwendt schrieb: > On Mon, 30 Oct 2006 12:21:59 -0600 (CST), Jima wrote: >> On Mon, 30 Oct 2006, Ralf Corsepius wrote: >> Okay. In that case, when the next election comes around, nominate >> yourself. If you find yourself constantly at odds with so-called "Fedora >> Leadership," then take a stand and try to become part of the solution. >> Remember, Fedora is largely self-governed. > Interesting comment, albeit somewhat over the top. I don't think so. We are a community driven project. Nobody gets payed for his work in Extras. If you think something should be changed in Extras land write proposals, show them to the community, get them discussed on public lists (FESCo members are encouraged to participate in the discussions and speak up directly there if they don't like something) and find a proposal/a solution that fits most contributors (we are to many people in between, you probably often won't find a solution that fits all contributors -- that sucks, but that's life). FESCo work after that part IMHO should simply be a "okay, seems the contributors want that this way, it looks acceptable, so we do it". But complaining only and waiting for others (e.g. FESCo) to do the work won't help to much. Endless discussion over details without a proposal FESCo can vote on won't help much, too. Simply writing a proposal and presenting it to FESCo after a public discussion will -- and you don't have to be a FESCo member for that. > Do remember that with > the last FESCo "election" primarily we just filled vacant seats in a very > half-hearted and controversial way. I'm looking forward for the next election and your detailed suggestions what do to better. > Before the next election a lot must > happen. The FE developer community needs means to measure whether they are > happy with the elected representatives. That is not possible when FESCo's > decision-finding process is not documented, when some FESCo members either > abstain from voting often or always [or because they are absent from a > high number of public meetings], and when this leads to sort of anonymous > FESCo decisions (where only with high effort or luck you find nothing more > than a few +1/-1 votes in meeting-minutes). As I said: If you think something needs to change propose a scheme. But I like the way the meetings are ran currently because it helps getting stuff done without to much overhead. And I want to keep the overhead down as much as possible because there is so much we {sh,c}ould do ( http://www.fedoraproject.org/wiki/Extras/Schedule/IdeasContainer ). I'd also like to to keep down FESCo importance as much as possible and Extras "self-governed" as far as possible. > At the topic of FESCo, just a few days ago I was surprised that I could > not find the FESCo members' mission statements anymore. It turned out the > page was deleted without any (or without an easy-to-find) replacement: > http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Extras/SteeringCommittee/Nominations?action=recall&rev=27 Thanks for complaining. But remember: It's a wiki. If you want something written down there feel free to do it yourself. In this case I did fix it myself because I was the bad guys who accidentally deleted that page in a "let's clean up the Extras/ section in the wiki". How does it looks like now? Acceptable? It took me only two or three minutes. Probably not more much more time then it took to write the four lines from your mail. Cu thl From rc040203 at freenet.de Tue Oct 31 11:33:51 2006 From: rc040203 at freenet.de (Ralf Corsepius) Date: Tue, 31 Oct 2006 12:33:51 +0100 Subject: [Bug 178162] Review Request: libgeotiff In-Reply-To: <1162233076.4748.9.camel@zod.rchland.ibm.com> References: <200610301518.k9UFIl2L012360@bugzilla.redhat.com> <1162225546.6667.94.camel@mccallum.corsepiu.local> <1162227632.6667.108.camel@mccallum.corsepiu.local> <1162232000.6667.123.camel@mccallum.corsepiu.local> <1162233076.4748.9.camel@zod.rchland.ibm.com> Message-ID: <1162294431.6667.312.camel@mccallum.corsepiu.local> On Mon, 2006-10-30 at 12:31 -0600, Josh Boyer wrote: > On Mon, 2006-10-30 at 19:13 +0100, Ralf Corsepius wrote: > > On Mon, 2006-10-30 at 11:19 -0600, Jason L Tibbitts III wrote: > > > >>>>> "RC" == Ralf Corsepius writes: > > > > > > RC> Nobody is talking about changing Fedora. I am talking about adding > > > RC> another, separate repo, people could add as part of FE (Non-free > > > RC> Fedora Extras) > > > > > > Well, now you are, but you certainly didn't make that clear. > > > > > > Since you seem to prefer arguing with, well, anyone > > Actually I am only arguing with one party "Fedora Leadership", > > on always the same subject "Their (IMO narrow-minded) notion on > > OpenSource". > > OpenSource and Free Software are not the same thing. Yes, but neither OpenSource nor Free Software are identical to the OSI definitions, nor are they identical to an individual's notion of "open", "free" or even "libre" - These all are political labels, which often are being abused. > Ask RMS if you > don't believe me. But that is a complete side issue. Just as your > assertions of "most users are universities and educational > institutions..." are. Well, firstly. this is my personal experience, secondly one thing is a fact: The majority of OpenSource developers has a university/educational institution background. This applies in particular to packages with clearly scientific background such as gdal and libgeotiff. > Anyway, what does a "non-free Fedora Extras" repository buy you over > just using on of the other third party repositories that already cover > this? I see no difference at all, other than a blessing from the Fedora > project which I (personally) don't think it would deserve. > > Seriously, what benefit would it have? The same as FE has over 3rd party repositories: Same server infrastructure, build system infrastructure, better package coordination/less package conflicts (c.f. Axel's complaint on zaptel and friends), same packaging standards, ... The downside would be: Probably endless quarrels on "legality", more bureaucracy and ... "less freedom" :( Ralf From bugs.michael at gmx.net Tue Oct 31 11:40:28 2006 From: bugs.michael at gmx.net (Michael Schwendt) Date: Tue, 31 Oct 2006 12:40:28 +0100 Subject: FESCo critique (was: Re: [Bug 178162] Review Request: libgeotiff) In-Reply-To: <454714C2.3040603@leemhuis.info> References: <200610301518.k9UFIl2L012360@bugzilla.redhat.com> <1162225546.6667.94.camel@mccallum.corsepiu.local> <1162227632.6667.108.camel@mccallum.corsepiu.local> <1162232000.6667.123.camel@mccallum.corsepiu.local> <20061030205021.f6701e03.bugs.michael@gmx.net> <454714C2.3040603@leemhuis.info> Message-ID: <20061031124028.8aff8ce7.bugs.michael@gmx.net> On Tue, 31 Oct 2006 10:17:54 +0100, Thorsten Leemhuis wrote: > > Do remember that with > > the last FESCo "election" primarily we just filled vacant seats in a very > > half-hearted and controversial way. > > I'm looking forward for the next election and your detailed suggestions > what do to better. This sounds as if you cannot think of any improvements yourself and as if you just want somebody else to do the work. Food for thought: Self-nominees who had less than 50% of the possible number of votes were able to enter FESCo. So, even if the majority of contributors did not vote for them, they were able to join FESCo. It was impossible to vote "against" somebody by not voting for him. > > Before the next election a lot must > > happen. The FE developer community needs means to measure whether they are > > happy with the elected representatives. That is not possible when FESCo's > > decision-finding process is not documented, when some FESCo members either > > abstain from voting often or always [or because they are absent from a > > high number of public meetings], and when this leads to sort of anonymous > > FESCo decisions (where only with high effort or luck you find nothing more > > than a few +1/-1 votes in meeting-minutes). > > As I said: If you think something needs to change propose a scheme. And you will reject it if you think it creates work and if nobody is willing to do that work. For many decisions, FESCo's +1/-1 style votings are not even needed. They just add overhead. But when FESCo is really needed to decide on something, I'd like the official decision to be documented clearly more like this Summary of the proposal: [...] Pro: 10/13 Contra: 2/13 (thl, jwb) Absent: 1/13 (awjb) plus a summary of how exactly thl and jwb disagreed. And the whole thing announced via e-mail or on a separate "FESCo Announcements" page. It is most interesting to learn what _community representatives_ within FESCo think. Because if any FESCo member disagrees too often with the community and with FESCo or abstains from taking part in FESCo decisions, this would be a sign that the community may want to vote differently the next time and replace the person, because of interest conflicts. And for that to be possible, there must be rules for the election. What of http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Extras/SteeringCommittee/Meetings is still relevant? As a new contributor, how could I learn about past FESCo decisions and the decision of the individual members? > > At the topic of FESCo, just a few days ago I was surprised that I could > > not find the FESCo members' mission statements anymore. It turned out the > > page was deleted without any (or without an easy-to-find) replacement: > > http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Extras/SteeringCommittee/Nominations?action=recall&rev=27 > > Thanks for complaining. But remember: It's a wiki. If you want something > written down there feel free to do it yourself. Remember the recent conflict in the Wiki. Without talking about things, we would be flipping forth and back changes to the pages and their structure. :) And why would I dare and touch Wiki pages below the FESCo hierarchy? From jnovy at redhat.com Tue Oct 31 12:25:48 2006 From: jnovy at redhat.com (Jindrich Novy) Date: Tue, 31 Oct 2006 13:25:48 +0100 Subject: cURL related rebuilds Message-ID: <1162297549.29908.17.camel@redhat.usu> Hi all, I updated cURL yesterday to 7.16.0 which increases soname of libcurl.so.3 to libcurl.so.4. Because of it the following packages in Core and Extras need to be rebuilt: Core: curl-0:7.15.5-1.fc6 (p:libcurl.so.3) <- gnupg [core] curl-0:7.15.5-1.fc6 (p:libcurl.so.3) <- php [core] curl-0:7.15.5-1.fc6 (p:libcurl.so.3) <- php-cli [core] curl-0:7.15.5-1.fc6 (p:libcurl.so.3) <- openoffice.org-core) [core] curl-0:7.15.5-1.fc6 (p:libcurl.so.3) <- vorbis-tools [core] Extras: curl-0:7.15.5-1.fc6 (p:libcurl.so.3) <- drivel [extras] curl-0:7.15.5-1.fc6 (p:libcurl.so.3) <- bzflag [extras] curl-0:7.15.5-1.fc6 (p:libcurl.so.3) <- camE [extras] curl-0:7.15.5-1.fc6 (p:libcurl.so.3) <- darcs [extras] curl-0:7.15.5-1.fc6 (p:libcurl.so.3) <- ecore [extras] curl-0:7.15.5-1.fc6 (p:libcurl.so.3) <- edje [extras] curl-0:7.15.5-1.fc6 (p:libcurl.so.3) <- fbida [extras] curl-0:7.15.5-1.fc6 (p:libcurl.so.3) <- fbida-ida [extras] curl-0:7.15.5-1.fc6 (p:libcurl.so.3) <- q [extras] curl-0:7.15.5-1.fc6 (p:libcurl.so.3) <- gnomesword [extras] curl-0:7.15.5-1.fc6 (p:libcurl.so.3) <- fbida [extras] curl-0:7.15.5-1.fc6 (p:libcurl.so.3) <- grads [extras] curl-0:7.15.5-1.fc6 (p:libcurl.so.3) <- grip [extras] curl-0:7.15.5-1.fc6 (p:libcurl.so.3) <- gtorrentviewer [extras] curl-0:7.15.5-1.fc6 (p:libcurl.so.3) <- jigdo [extras] curl-0:7.15.5-1.fc6 (p:libcurl.so.3) <- raptor [extras] curl-0:7.15.5-1.fc6 (p:libcurl.so.3) <- xmms-scrobbler [extras] curl-0:7.15.5-1.fc6 (p:libcurl.so.3) <- xmoto [extras] curl-0:7.15.5-1.fc6 (p:libcurl.so.3) <- centericq [extras] curl-0:7.15.5-1.fc6 (p:libcurl.so.3) <- dap-freeform_handler [extras] curl-0:7.15.5-1.fc6 (p:libcurl.so.3) <- dap-hdf4_handler [extras] curl-0:7.15.5-1.fc6 (p:libcurl.so.3) <- dap-netcdf_handler [extras] curl-0:7.15.5-1.fc6 (p:libcurl.so.3) <- gambas-gb-net-curl [extras] curl-0:7.15.5-1.fc6 (p:libcurl.so.3) <- icecast [extras] curl-0:7.15.5-1.fc6 (p:libcurl.so.3) <- libdap [extras] curl-0:7.15.5-1.fc6 (p:libcurl.so.3) <- libnc-dap [extras] curl-0:7.15.5-1.fc6 (p:libcurl.so.3) <- octave-forge [extras] curl-0:7.15.5-1.fc6 (p:libcurl.so.3) <- sblim-wbemcli [extras] curl-0:7.15.5-1.fc6 (p:libcurl.so.3) <- streamtuner [extras] curl-0:7.15.5-1.fc6 (p:libcurl.so.3) <- sword [extras] curl-0:7.15.5-1.fc6 (p:libcurl.so.3) <- xmlrpc-c-apps [extras] curl-0:7.15.5-1.fc6 (p:libcurl.so.3) <- xmlrpc-c [extras] curl-0:7.15.5-1.fc6 (p:libcurl.so.3) <- libtunepimp [extras] curl-0:7.15.5-1.fc6 (p:libcurl.so.3) <- manaworld [extras] curl-0:7.15.5-1.fc6 (p:libcurl.so.3) <- sylpheed-claws-plugins-vcalendar [extras] curl-0:7.15.5-1.fc6 (p:libcurl.so.3) <- sylpheed-claws-plugins-gtkhtml2-viewer [extras] curl-0:7.15.5-1.fc6 (p:libcurl.so.3) <- sylpheed-claws-plugins-rssyl [extras] Thanks, Jindrich From jwboyer at jdub.homelinux.org Tue Oct 31 13:21:37 2006 From: jwboyer at jdub.homelinux.org (Josh Boyer) Date: Tue, 31 Oct 2006 07:21:37 -0600 Subject: [Bug 178162] Review Request: libgeotiff In-Reply-To: <1162294431.6667.312.camel@mccallum.corsepiu.local> References: <200610301518.k9UFIl2L012360@bugzilla.redhat.com> <1162225546.6667.94.camel@mccallum.corsepiu.local> <1162227632.6667.108.camel@mccallum.corsepiu.local> <1162232000.6667.123.camel@mccallum.corsepiu.local> <1162233076.4748.9.camel@zod.rchland.ibm.com> <1162294431.6667.312.camel@mccallum.corsepiu.local> Message-ID: <1162300897.19145.15.camel@zod.rchland.ibm.com> On Tue, 2006-10-31 at 12:33 +0100, Ralf Corsepius wrote: > > > > OpenSource and Free Software are not the same thing. > Yes, but neither OpenSource nor Free Software are identical to the OSI > definitions, nor are they identical to an individual's notion of "open", > "free" or even "libre" - These all are political labels, which often are > being abused. Right, agreed. So we'll not use them anymore in this discussion. Moving on. > Well, firstly. this is my personal experience, secondly one thing is a > fact: The majority of OpenSource developers has a university/educational > institution background. Ok, my personal experience differs. Let's move on from this too, since it's really immaterial to the conversation. > > Seriously, what benefit would it have? > The same as FE has over 3rd party repositories: > > Same server infrastructure, build system infrastructure, better package > coordination/less package conflicts (c.f. Axel's complaint on zaptel and > friends), same packaging standards, ... The only thing I really see as a benefit is perhaps the same server infrastructure. Plague is open source, so a 3rd party repo can use that just fine (I'm part of a local project that does). The packaging standards can be adopted by anyone. Coordination/conflicts... only because it would the become required for maintainers of FE which places more steps on them. > > The downside would be: Probably endless quarrels on "legality", more > bureaucracy and ... "less freedom" :( Well, to paraphrase a conversation I had with a few people yesterday, you have to draw the line somewhere. The "no use restrictions" is a reasonable one. josh From fedora at leemhuis.info Tue Oct 31 13:26:19 2006 From: fedora at leemhuis.info (Thorsten Leemhuis) Date: Tue, 31 Oct 2006 14:26:19 +0100 Subject: FESCo critique In-Reply-To: <20061031124028.8aff8ce7.bugs.michael@gmx.net> References: <200610301518.k9UFIl2L012360@bugzilla.redhat.com> <1162225546.6667.94.camel@mccallum.corsepiu.local> <1162227632.6667.108.camel@mccallum.corsepiu.local> <1162232000.6667.123.camel@mccallum.corsepiu.local> <20061030205021.f6701e03.bugs.michael@gmx.net> <454714C2.3040603@leemhuis.info> <20061031124028.8aff8ce7.bugs.michael@gmx.net> Message-ID: <45474EFB.5010605@leemhuis.info> Michael Schwendt schrieb: > On Tue, 31 Oct 2006 10:17:54 +0100, Thorsten Leemhuis wrote: >>> Do remember that with >>> the last FESCo "election" primarily we just filled vacant seats in a very >>> half-hearted and controversial way. >> I'm looking forward for the next election and your detailed suggestions >> what do to better. > This sounds as if you cannot think of any improvements yourself and as if > you just want somebody else to do the work. That might sound like that, but it's in fact more some kind of resignation on my side because I'd like to get more things done but don't have enough time to do it. But on the other hand I got the impresion that the current schematic for Extras is considered "good enough" for a lot of people. > [...] >>> Before the next election a lot must >>> happen. The FE developer community needs means to measure whether they are >>> happy with the elected representatives. That is not possible when FESCo's >>> decision-finding process is not documented, when some FESCo members either >>> abstain from voting often or always [or because they are absent from a >>> high number of public meetings], and when this leads to sort of anonymous >>> FESCo decisions (where only with high effort or luck you find nothing more >>> than a few +1/-1 votes in meeting-minutes). >> As I said: If you think something needs to change propose a scheme. > And you will reject it I'm not FESCo alone. I can't reject anything alone. > if you think it creates work and if nobody is > willing to do that work. Work for whom? If somebody presents a properly worked out proposal (see above) to me/FESCo it's nothing more then a "here, foo worked out proposal bar and discussed it with the community on f-e-l. Looks great, do we agree to use it, Yes/No please. If somebody dislikes it please restart the discussion on the list" in the meeting and we'll get back to it in the next meeting". > For many decisions, FESCo's +1/-1 style votings are not even needed. > They just add overhead. Well, currently a lot of these "+1/-1 style votings" for easy things are more a "FESCo members, this is your last chance to yell". > But when FESCo is really needed to decide on something, I'd like the > official decision to be documented clearly more like this > > Summary of the proposal: [...] > Pro: 10/13 > Contra: 2/13 (thl, jwb) > Absent: 1/13 (awjb) > > plus a summary of how exactly thl and jwb disagreed. Well, that creates a lot of work for the one who writes the summaries -- and that's a unwelcomed job already, so I don't think we should make it even harder (sure, if somebody want to do it: great). Further: I think those informations are in the full IRC log normally, and if someone is really interested in those details he should read that section from the log. > And the whole thing announced via e-mail or on a separate "FESCo > Announcements" page. It is most interesting to learn what _community > representatives_ within FESCo think. Well, I've thought about a "FESCo Announcements" page, too, but had something slightly different in mind. What you outline sounds more like a improved variant of the meetings summaries to me. > Because if any FESCo member disagrees too often with the community and > with FESCo or abstains from taking part in FESCo decisions, this would be > a sign that the community may want to vote differently the next time and > replace the person, because of interest conflicts. And for that to be > possible, there must be rules for the election. Yeah, but you'd even have to create stats about the individual votings. Lot of work... > What of > http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Extras/SteeringCommittee/Meetings > is still relevant? As a new contributor, how could I learn about past > FESCo decisions and the decision of the individual members? Past "FESCo decisions" that are relevant for the future should normally find their way to the policies or somewhere else in the wiki (that was not handled to well in the past, but I try to make that happen always these days; still not perfect, I know). But most stuff are short term decisions. Sure, it might be nice to have those collected somewhere, but I consider most of http://www.fedoraproject.org/wiki/Extras/Schedule/IdeasContainer more important for now. >>> At the topic of FESCo, just a few days ago I was surprised that I could >>> not find the FESCo members' mission statements anymore. It turned out the >>> page was deleted without any (or without an easy-to-find) replacement: >>> http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Extras/SteeringCommittee/Nominations?action=recall&rev=27 >> Thanks for complaining. But remember: It's a wiki. If you want something >> written down there feel free to do it yourself. > Remember the recent conflict in the Wiki. Without talking about things, we > would be flipping forth and back changes to the pages and their structure. :) Well, that might happen now and then, but in this case I think it would not have happened. > And why would I dare and touch Wiki pages below the FESCo hierarchy? Why not? Is it forbidden somewhere? The ACLs allow editing everywhere below Extras/. And I think that should remain like that. I and several others watch the wiki and we'll probably jump in to fix stuff if that might be needed. There are two areas where editing should be done by FESCo: - Extras/Policy/* -- those are worked out in a hard process and just modifying those would be bad. But there are no ACls set in place to prevent adjustments, so people still can easily fix spelling errors, formating, clarify wording ... - Extras/Schedule -- well, that's the document FESCo uses for their meetings, so it should normally only be touched by FESCo members. Site note: If anybody wants to present a proposal for FESCo feel free to add a document Extras/Schedule/FooBar (use Extras/Schedule/TopicTemplate as template) and tell me when it's ready for FESCo consumption. Site note: all FESCo members are subscribed indirectly so all stuff that happens below Extras/Schedule* . All Extras contributors that are interested in FESCo's work can do the same. That should give a good idea of the work that's happening in FESCo-land, because FESCo uses the wiki as some kind of information exchange. Cu thl From jwboyer at jdub.homelinux.org Tue Oct 31 13:31:45 2006 From: jwboyer at jdub.homelinux.org (Josh Boyer) Date: Tue, 31 Oct 2006 07:31:45 -0600 Subject: FESCo critique (was: Re: [Bug 178162] Review Request: libgeotiff) In-Reply-To: <20061031124028.8aff8ce7.bugs.michael@gmx.net> References: <200610301518.k9UFIl2L012360@bugzilla.redhat.com> <1162225546.6667.94.camel@mccallum.corsepiu.local> <1162227632.6667.108.camel@mccallum.corsepiu.local> <1162232000.6667.123.camel@mccallum.corsepiu.local> <20061030205021.f6701e03.bugs.michael@gmx.net> <454714C2.3040603@leemhuis.info> <20061031124028.8aff8ce7.bugs.michael@gmx.net> Message-ID: <1162301505.19145.25.camel@zod.rchland.ibm.com> On Tue, 2006-10-31 at 12:40 +0100, Michael Schwendt wrote: > On Tue, 31 Oct 2006 10:17:54 +0100, Thorsten Leemhuis wrote: > > > > Do remember that with > > > the last FESCo "election" primarily we just filled vacant seats in a very > > > half-hearted and controversial way. > > > > I'm looking forward for the next election and your detailed suggestions > > what do to better. > > This sounds as if you cannot think of any improvements yourself and as if > you just want somebody else to do the work. Or it sounds as if we think what we have in place is fine, so we'd like to hear what you find lacking. > Food for thought: Self-nominees who had less than 50% of the possible > number of votes were able to enter FESCo. So, even if the majority of > contributors did not vote for them, they were able to join FESCo. It was > impossible to vote "against" somebody by not voting for him. I'd like to personally state that if the community thinks that I as a FESCo member am not doing a good job for Extras, then they only need to speak up. Should a large majority call for me to step down, I would do so willingly. Just my personal thought on that. > > > Before the next election a lot must > > > happen. The FE developer community needs means to measure whether they are > > > happy with the elected representatives. That is not possible when FESCo's > > > decision-finding process is not documented, when some FESCo members either > > > abstain from voting often or always [or because they are absent from a > > > high number of public meetings], and when this leads to sort of anonymous > > > FESCo decisions (where only with high effort or luck you find nothing more > > > than a few +1/-1 votes in meeting-minutes). > > > > As I said: If you think something needs to change propose a scheme. > > And you will reject it if you think it creates work and if nobody is > willing to do that work. If it is truly beneficial then it becomes important enough for someone to do the work. And that person doesn't have to be in FESCo for a large majority of things. > For many decisions, FESCo's +1/-1 style votings are not even needed. > They just add overhead. Example? > But when FESCo is really needed to decide on something, I'd like the > official decision to be documented clearly more like this > > Summary of the proposal: [...] > Pro: 10/13 > Contra: 2/13 (thl, jwb) > Absent: 1/13 (awjb) > > plus a summary of how exactly thl and jwb disagreed. > > And the whole thing announced via e-mail or on a separate "FESCo > Announcements" page. It is most interesting to learn what _community > representatives_ within FESCo think. I find this to be a good suggestion. The information is all in the meeting logs already, but one has to read the whole log to find it. A summary like you describe would be quite nice. > > What of > > http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Extras/SteeringCommittee/Meetings > > is still relevant? As a new contributor, how could I learn about past > FESCo decisions and the decision of the individual members? I'm not sure what you mean. Those are the meeting logs. They are all relevant to the history of FESCo... Current items can be found here: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Extras/Schedule and closed items can be found here: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Extras/Schedule/ClosedIssues josh From pertusus at free.fr Tue Oct 31 13:58:49 2006 From: pertusus at free.fr (Patrice Dumas) Date: Tue, 31 Oct 2006 14:58:49 +0100 Subject: [Bug 178162] Review Request: libgeotiff In-Reply-To: <1162300897.19145.15.camel@zod.rchland.ibm.com> References: <200610301518.k9UFIl2L012360@bugzilla.redhat.com> <1162225546.6667.94.camel@mccallum.corsepiu.local> <1162227632.6667.108.camel@mccallum.corsepiu.local> <1162232000.6667.123.camel@mccallum.corsepiu.local> <1162233076.4748.9.camel@zod.rchland.ibm.com> <1162294431.6667.312.camel@mccallum.corsepiu.local> <1162300897.19145.15.camel@zod.rchland.ibm.com> Message-ID: <20061031135849.GA2251@free.fr> On Tue, Oct 31, 2006 at 07:21:37AM -0600, Josh Boyer wrote: > > Well, to paraphrase a conversation I had with a few people yesterday, > you have to draw the line somewhere. The "no use restrictions" is a > reasonable one. Not necessarily. it rules out openmotif, although it seems to me that it would fit perfectly in this repo. I think the following rules could be acceptable (to be discussed and modified): * reject anything illegal * reject code if it doesn't come with source or cannot be changed, with an exception for firmware as in fedora extras. * reject data if it is in an obfuscated form (like crypted, for example). * don't reject things that cannot be redistributed commercially. * reject things that cannot be redistributed. * don't reject data that cannot modified (including art or scientific data). * don't reject things that cannot be used with things that we reject (openmotif is in that category), reject if there are other condition on use. * accept. -- Pat From jorton at redhat.com Tue Oct 31 14:20:08 2006 From: jorton at redhat.com (Joe Orton) Date: Tue, 31 Oct 2006 14:20:08 +0000 Subject: cURL related rebuilds In-Reply-To: <1162297549.29908.17.camel@redhat.usu> References: <1162297549.29908.17.camel@redhat.usu> Message-ID: <20061031142007.GA17179@redhat.com> On Tue, Oct 31, 2006 at 01:25:48PM +0100, Jindrich Novy wrote: > I updated cURL yesterday to 7.16.0 which increases soname of > libcurl.so.3 to libcurl.so.4. Because of it the following packages in > Core and Extras need to be rebuilt: Thanks for the heads-up. > curl-0:7.15.5-1.fc6 (p:libcurl.so.3) <- php [core] > curl-0:7.15.5-1.fc6 (p:libcurl.so.3) <- php-cli [core] I have these ready to rebuild, currently blocked on a gmp issue. Regards, joe From rc040203 at freenet.de Tue Oct 31 14:33:37 2006 From: rc040203 at freenet.de (Ralf Corsepius) Date: Tue, 31 Oct 2006 15:33:37 +0100 Subject: [Bug 178162] Review Request: libgeotiff In-Reply-To: <1162300897.19145.15.camel@zod.rchland.ibm.com> References: <200610301518.k9UFIl2L012360@bugzilla.redhat.com> <1162225546.6667.94.camel@mccallum.corsepiu.local> <1162227632.6667.108.camel@mccallum.corsepiu.local> <1162232000.6667.123.camel@mccallum.corsepiu.local> <1162233076.4748.9.camel@zod.rchland.ibm.com> <1162294431.6667.312.camel@mccallum.corsepiu.local> <1162300897.19145.15.camel@zod.rchland.ibm.com> Message-ID: <1162305217.6667.402.camel@mccallum.corsepiu.local> On Tue, 2006-10-31 at 07:21 -0600, Josh Boyer wrote: > On Tue, 2006-10-31 at 12:33 +0100, Ralf Corsepius wrote: > > > > > Well, firstly. this is my personal experience, secondly one thing is a > > fact: The majority of OpenSource developers has a university/educational > > institution background. > > Ok, my personal experience differs. Well, it might be a national difference ;) In Germany, Linux is of very limited importance outside of universities, and even if, then the Linux market is dominated by the other major distro. THL works for a magazine which occasionally publishes figures and conducts "user polls". May-be he has recent numbers. > > > Seriously, what benefit would it have? > > The same as FE has over 3rd party repositories: > > > > Same server infrastructure, build system infrastructure, better package > > coordination/less package conflicts (c.f. Axel's complaint on zaptel and > > friends), same packaging standards, ... > > The only thing I really see as a benefit is perhaps the same server > infrastructure. Plague is open source, so a 3rd party repo can use that > just fine (I'm part of a local project that does). The packaging > standards can be adopted by anyone. Coordination/conflicts... only > because it would the become required for maintainers of FE which places > more steps on them. I do not agree on this. The buildsystem and the distribution infrastructure makes a real difference for "Joe average contributor". Also the "centralized repo under a common hood" makes a real difference to end-users. > > The downside would be: Probably endless quarrels on "legality", more > > bureaucracy and ... "less freedom" :( > > Well, to paraphrase a conversation I had with a few people yesterday, > you have to draw the line somewhere. The "no use restrictions" is a > reasonable one. Well, probably no surprize to you, to me this is not sufficient. Ralf From jnovy at redhat.com Tue Oct 31 14:53:56 2006 From: jnovy at redhat.com (Jindrich Novy) Date: Tue, 31 Oct 2006 15:53:56 +0100 Subject: updating db4 to 4.5.20 Message-ID: <1162306437.2372.17.camel@redhat.usu> Hi, I'm planning db4 update to 4.5.20 in a short time. Does anybody see a problem in it? (regarding quality of the upstream code, known breakages of this release etc.?) I tested this release together with Robert Scheck in bz #198038 and it looks sane. Proposed new db4 package is: http://people.redhat.com/jnovy/files/db4-4.5.20-1.src.rpm if you want to test. Rebuilds of all the db4 dependent packages will be needed and db4-4.3 will be moved to compat-db then. Rawhide breakage time(TM) has come again :] Jindrich -- Jindrich Novy , http://people.redhat.com/jnovy/ (o_ _o) //\ The worst evil in the world is refusal to think. //\ V_/_ _\_V From bpepple at fedoraproject.org Tue Oct 31 15:00:30 2006 From: bpepple at fedoraproject.org (Brian Pepple) Date: Tue, 31 Oct 2006 10:00:30 -0500 Subject: FESCo critique (was: Re: [Bug 178162] Review Request: libgeotiff) In-Reply-To: <1162301505.19145.25.camel@zod.rchland.ibm.com> References: <200610301518.k9UFIl2L012360@bugzilla.redhat.com> <1162225546.6667.94.camel@mccallum.corsepiu.local> <1162227632.6667.108.camel@mccallum.corsepiu.local> <1162232000.6667.123.camel@mccallum.corsepiu.local> <20061030205021.f6701e03.bugs.michael@gmx.net> <454714C2.3040603@leemhuis.info> <20061031124028.8aff8ce7.bugs.michael@gmx.net> <1162301505.19145.25.camel@zod.rchland.ibm.com> Message-ID: <1162306830.3945.5.camel@Chuck> On Tue, 2006-10-31 at 07:31 -0600, Josh Boyer wrote: > > But when FESCo is really needed to decide on something, I'd like the > > official decision to be documented clearly more like this > > > > Summary of the proposal: [...] > > Pro: 10/13 > > Contra: 2/13 (thl, jwb) > > Absent: 1/13 (awjb) > > > > plus a summary of how exactly thl and jwb disagreed. > > > > And the whole thing announced via e-mail or on a separate "FESCo > > Announcements" page. It is most interesting to learn what _community > > representatives_ within FESCo think. > > I find this to be a good suggestion. The information is all in the > meeting logs already, but one has to read the whole log to find it. A > summary like you describe would be quite nice. I agree also. This would be extra work, but I think the benefits would be worth it, since it would give a clearer view of our voting. /B -- Brian Pepple gpg --keyserver pgp.mit.edu --recv-keys 810CC15E BD5E 6F9E 8688 E668 8F5B CBDE 326A E936 810C C15E -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 189 bytes Desc: This is a digitally signed message part URL: From thias at spam.spam.spam.spam.spam.spam.spam.egg.and.spam.freshrpms.net Tue Oct 31 15:11:11 2006 From: thias at spam.spam.spam.spam.spam.spam.spam.egg.and.spam.freshrpms.net (Matthias Saou) Date: Tue, 31 Oct 2006 16:11:11 +0100 Subject: cURL related rebuilds In-Reply-To: <1162297549.29908.17.camel@redhat.usu> References: <1162297549.29908.17.camel@redhat.usu> Message-ID: <20061031161111.6ba5c38a@python3.es.egwn.lan> Jindrich Novy wrote : > I updated cURL yesterday to 7.16.0 which increases soname of > libcurl.so.3 to libcurl.so.4. Seems like some things have changed, given how the camE rebuild has failed. Might not be a simple "bump and build" for all packages : http://buildsys.fedoraproject.org/logs/fedora-development-extras/20628-camE-1.9-8.fc7/i386/build.log Matthias -- Clean custom Red Hat Linux rpm packages : http://freshrpms.net/ Fedora Core release 6 (Zod) - Linux kernel 2.6.18-1.2798.fc6 Load : 0.87 1.16 1.66 From pertusus at free.fr Tue Oct 31 15:35:55 2006 From: pertusus at free.fr (Patrice Dumas) Date: Tue, 31 Oct 2006 16:35:55 +0100 Subject: cURL related rebuilds In-Reply-To: <1162297549.29908.17.camel@redhat.usu> References: <1162297549.29908.17.camel@redhat.usu> Message-ID: <20061031153555.GB2274@free.fr> On Tue, Oct 31, 2006 at 01:25:48PM +0100, Jindrich Novy wrote: > Hi all, > > curl-0:7.15.5-1.fc6 (p:libcurl.so.3) <- libdap [extras] This one really depends on curl (more precisely libdapclient.so depends on libcurl). > curl-0:7.15.5-1.fc6 (p:libcurl.so.3) <- grads [extras] > curl-0:7.15.5-1.fc6 (p:libcurl.so.3) <- dap-freeform_handler [extras] > curl-0:7.15.5-1.fc6 (p:libcurl.so.3) <- dap-hdf4_handler [extras] > curl-0:7.15.5-1.fc6 (p:libcurl.so.3) <- dap-netcdf_handler [extras] > curl-0:7.15.5-1.fc6 (p:libcurl.so.3) <- libnc-dap [extras] These have indirect dependencies, as shown by ldd -u -r. The direct dependency is on libdapclient.so. It comes from the link command, dap-config, which uses in turn the curl-config output: -L/usr/kerberos/lib -lcurl -lgssapi_krb5 -lkrb5 -lk5crypto -lcom_err -lresolv -ldl -lidn -lssl -lcrypto -lz If I'm not wrong precising all the libraries to link against is needed for static linking, but not for dynamic linking. I think it would be better to avoid rebuilding the lib/apps which don't depend directly on a library. Is it possible to get rid of the unneeded direct dependencies cleanly? -- Pat From paul at city-fan.org Tue Oct 31 15:37:46 2006 From: paul at city-fan.org (Paul Howarth) Date: Tue, 31 Oct 2006 15:37:46 +0000 Subject: cURL related rebuilds In-Reply-To: <20061031161111.6ba5c38a@python3.es.egwn.lan> References: <1162297549.29908.17.camel@redhat.usu> <20061031161111.6ba5c38a@python3.es.egwn.lan> Message-ID: <45476DCA.6080802@city-fan.org> Matthias Saou wrote: > Jindrich Novy wrote : > >> I updated cURL yesterday to 7.16.0 which increases soname of >> libcurl.so.3 to libcurl.so.4. > > Seems like some things have changed, given how the camE rebuild has > failed. Might not be a simple "bump and build" for all packages : > > http://buildsys.fedoraproject.org/logs/fedora-development-extras/20628-camE-1.9-8.fc7/i386/build.log The CURLOPT_MUTE option has been deprecated (and hasn't done anything) since curl 7.8: http://curl.haxx.se/mail/lib-2001-09/0030.html It's finally gone away in 7.16.0, but it shouldn't be too hard to patch it out of anything that still tries to use it. Paul. From jnovy at redhat.com Tue Oct 31 15:38:01 2006 From: jnovy at redhat.com (Jindrich Novy) Date: Tue, 31 Oct 2006 16:38:01 +0100 Subject: cURL related rebuilds In-Reply-To: <20061031161111.6ba5c38a@python3.es.egwn.lan> References: <1162297549.29908.17.camel@redhat.usu> <20061031161111.6ba5c38a@python3.es.egwn.lan> Message-ID: <1162309081.2372.36.camel@redhat.usu> Hi Matthias, On Tue, 2006-10-31 at 16:11 +0100, Matthias Saou wrote: > Jindrich Novy wrote : > > > I updated cURL yesterday to 7.16.0 which increases soname of > > libcurl.so.3 to libcurl.so.4. > > Seems like some things have changed, given how the camE rebuild has > failed. Might not be a simple "bump and build" for all packages : > > http://buildsys.fedoraproject.org/logs/fedora-development-extras/20628-camE-1.9-8.fc7/i386/build.log Yes, obsolete CURLOPTs are now removed in 7.16.10, these are: CURLOPT_HTTPREQUEST, CURLOPT_FTPASCII, CURLOPT_MUTE, CURLOPT_PASSWDFUNCTION, CURLOPT_PASSWDDATA, CURLOPT_CLOSEFUNCTION, CURLOPT_SOURCE_HOST, CURLOPT_SOURCE_PATH, CURLOPT_SOURCE_PORT, CURLOPT_PASV_HOST Jindrich From rdieter at math.unl.edu Tue Oct 31 15:42:04 2006 From: rdieter at math.unl.edu (Rex Dieter) Date: Tue, 31 Oct 2006 09:42:04 -0600 Subject: cURL related rebuilds In-Reply-To: <20061031153555.GB2274@free.fr> References: <1162297549.29908.17.camel@redhat.usu> <20061031153555.GB2274@free.fr> Message-ID: <45476ECC.3070802@math.unl.edu> Patrice Dumas wrote: > On Tue, Oct 31, 2006 at 01:25:48PM +0100, Jindrich Novy wrote: >> Hi all, >> >> curl-0:7.15.5-1.fc6 (p:libcurl.so.3) <- libdap [extras] > > This one really depends on curl (more precisely libdapclient.so depends > on libcurl). > >> curl-0:7.15.5-1.fc6 (p:libcurl.so.3) <- grads [extras] >> curl-0:7.15.5-1.fc6 (p:libcurl.so.3) <- dap-freeform_handler [extras] >> curl-0:7.15.5-1.fc6 (p:libcurl.so.3) <- dap-hdf4_handler [extras] >> curl-0:7.15.5-1.fc6 (p:libcurl.so.3) <- dap-netcdf_handler [extras] >> curl-0:7.15.5-1.fc6 (p:libcurl.so.3) <- libnc-dap [extras] > > These have indirect dependencies, as shown by ldd -u -r. The direct > dependency is on libdapclient.so. It comes from the link command, > dap-config, which uses in turn the curl-config output: > -L/usr/kerberos/lib -lcurl -lgssapi_krb5 -lkrb5 -lk5crypto -lcom_err -lresolv -ldl -lidn -lssl -lcrypto -lz > > If I'm not wrong precising all the libraries to link against is needed > for static linking, but not for dynamic linking. Indeed, most likely all that is required for curl-using apps (that link dynamically) is: -lcurl. -- Rex From pertusus at free.fr Tue Oct 31 15:49:18 2006 From: pertusus at free.fr (Patrice Dumas) Date: Tue, 31 Oct 2006 16:49:18 +0100 Subject: cURL related rebuilds In-Reply-To: <45476ECC.3070802@math.unl.edu> References: <1162297549.29908.17.camel@redhat.usu> <20061031153555.GB2274@free.fr> <45476ECC.3070802@math.unl.edu> Message-ID: <20061031154918.GE2274@free.fr> On Tue, Oct 31, 2006 at 09:42:04AM -0600, Rex Dieter wrote: > Patrice Dumas wrote: > > Indeed, most likely all that is required for curl-using apps (that link > dynamically) is: > -lcurl. Ok, so what can be done to ameliorate the situation? Direct upstream to change dap-config have a switch for static linking, and another for dynamic linking? What is the proper fix (if there is one)? -- Pat From rdieter at math.unl.edu Tue Oct 31 15:54:36 2006 From: rdieter at math.unl.edu (Rex Dieter) Date: Tue, 31 Oct 2006 09:54:36 -0600 Subject: cURL related rebuilds In-Reply-To: <20061031154918.GE2274@free.fr> References: <1162297549.29908.17.camel@redhat.usu> <20061031153555.GB2274@free.fr> <45476ECC.3070802@math.unl.edu> <20061031154918.GE2274@free.fr> Message-ID: <454771BC.2050504@math.unl.edu> Patrice Dumas wrote: > On Tue, Oct 31, 2006 at 09:42:04AM -0600, Rex Dieter wrote: >> Patrice Dumas wrote: >> >> Indeed, most likely all that is required for curl-using apps (that link >> dynamically) is: >> -lcurl. > > Ok, so what can be done to ameliorate the situation? Direct upstream to > change dap-config have a switch for static linking, and another for dynamic > linking? IMO, the "best" fix would be to get curl to use pkg-config (instead of curl-config) and put those static-only libs in Libs.private = Likewise for dap and dap-config. -- Rex From j.w.r.degoede at hhs.nl Tue Oct 31 16:05:53 2006 From: j.w.r.degoede at hhs.nl (Hans de Goede) Date: Tue, 31 Oct 2006 17:05:53 +0100 Subject: [Bug 178162] Review Request: libgeotiff In-Reply-To: <1162300897.19145.15.camel@zod.rchland.ibm.com> References: <200610301518.k9UFIl2L012360@bugzilla.redhat.com> <1162225546.6667.94.camel@mccallum.corsepiu.local> <1162227632.6667.108.camel@mccallum.corsepiu.local> <1162232000.6667.123.camel@mccallum.corsepiu.local> <1162233076.4748.9.camel@zod.rchland.ibm.com> <1162294431.6667.312.camel@mccallum.corsepiu.local> <1162300897.19145.15.camel@zod.rchland.ibm.com> Message-ID: <45477461.8060606@hhs.nl> Josh Boyer wrote: > On Tue, 2006-10-31 at 12:33 +0100, Ralf Corsepius wrote: >> Same server infrastructure, build system infrastructure, better package >> coordination/less package conflicts (c.f. Axel's complaint on zaptel and >> friends), same packaging standards, ... > > The only thing I really see as a benefit is perhaps the same server > infrastructure. Plague is open source, so a 3rd party repo can use that > just fine (I'm part of a local project that does). The packaging > standards can be adopted by anyone. Coordination/conflicts... only > because it would the become required for maintainers of FE which places > more steps on them. > Setting up such an infrastructure and don't forget mirrors is far from easy, I'm a contributer to livna too and (Sorry Anvil) its infrastructure is clearly inferior (in some points) to FE's. May I reverse the question what is the big problem with having a non commercial only but otherwise Free repo using FE infrastructure? Many FE contributers are already spending time on such packages through all kind of small repo's / website's etc. I for one would rather spend that time within the same framework / infrastructure. In the end this would save me time thus allowing me todo more Fedora work. Also having such a repo will be good PR wise, then we have an official place to point users to look for such software instead of having to say erm yeah there are packages out there, but if things break you're on your own. Let me make myself very clear here, I'm not arguing to open the floodgates for all kinda dubious licensed / gray area software, I'm just asking for a non commercial repo (not even a non free one, source access matters!). > Well, to paraphrase a conversation I had with a few people yesterday, > you have to draw the line somewhere. The "no use restrictions" is a > reasonable one. > For Fedora Base (aka Core + Extras) I 100% agree but whats wrong with an additional repo which isn't enabled by default which lies the boundary at "no use restrictions accept for non commercial use only"? Again let me reverse the question from why a non commercial repo, to why not? Regards, Hans From pertusus at free.fr Tue Oct 31 15:56:32 2006 From: pertusus at free.fr (Patrice Dumas) Date: Tue, 31 Oct 2006 16:56:32 +0100 Subject: cURL related rebuilds In-Reply-To: <20061031154918.GE2274@free.fr> References: <1162297549.29908.17.camel@redhat.usu> <20061031153555.GB2274@free.fr> <45476ECC.3070802@math.unl.edu> <20061031154918.GE2274@free.fr> Message-ID: <20061031155632.GF2274@free.fr> On Tue, Oct 31, 2006 at 04:49:18PM +0100, Patrice Dumas wrote: > On Tue, Oct 31, 2006 at 09:42:04AM -0600, Rex Dieter wrote: > > Patrice Dumas wrote: > > > > Indeed, most likely all that is required for curl-using apps (that link > > dynamically) is: > > -lcurl. > > Ok, so what can be done to ameliorate the situation? Direct upstream to > change dap-config have a switch for static linking, and another for dynamic > linking? Also from the point of view of the application linking against libdap, for example, how can it know that it is performing a static or a dynamic linking? -- Pat From arjan at fenrus.demon.nl Tue Oct 31 14:40:24 2006 From: arjan at fenrus.demon.nl (Arjan van de Ven) Date: Tue, 31 Oct 2006 15:40:24 +0100 Subject: [Bug 178162] Review Request: libgeotiff In-Reply-To: <20061031135849.GA2251@free.fr> References: <200610301518.k9UFIl2L012360@bugzilla.redhat.com> <1162225546.6667.94.camel@mccallum.corsepiu.local> <1162227632.6667.108.camel@mccallum.corsepiu.local> <1162232000.6667.123.camel@mccallum.corsepiu.local> <1162233076.4748.9.camel@zod.rchland.ibm.com> <1162294431.6667.312.camel@mccallum.corsepiu.local> <1162300897.19145.15.camel@zod.rchland.ibm.com> <20061031135849.GA2251@free.fr> Message-ID: <1162305624.3044.29.camel@laptopd505.fenrus.org> On Tue, 2006-10-31 at 14:58 +0100, Patrice Dumas wrote: > On Tue, Oct 31, 2006 at 07:21:37AM -0600, Josh Boyer wrote: > > > > Well, to paraphrase a conversation I had with a few people yesterday, > > you have to draw the line somewhere. The "no use restrictions" is a > > reasonable one. > > Not necessarily. it rules out openmotif, although it seems to me that > it would fit perfectly in this repo. I think before making rules like this, there is a more fundamental discussion needed: Right now Fedora has a very explicit goal that it should be ok for 3rd parties to create physical media and sell that for profit. This rule originates I suspect in part from the entire "Oh my god Red Hat no longer makes media" slashdot crowd effect, but as a whole I think it does make sense. As long as that goal is there, trying to make a decision tree that undermines the goal is more or less pointless imo; it's a lot better to first agree/disagree about this goal and THEN look deeper. From ajackson at redhat.com Tue Oct 31 15:58:40 2006 From: ajackson at redhat.com (Adam Jackson) Date: Tue, 31 Oct 2006 10:58:40 -0500 Subject: [Bug 178162] Review Request: libgeotiff In-Reply-To: <45477461.8060606@hhs.nl> References: <200610301518.k9UFIl2L012360@bugzilla.redhat.com> <1162225546.6667.94.camel@mccallum.corsepiu.local> <1162227632.6667.108.camel@mccallum.corsepiu.local> <1162232000.6667.123.camel@mccallum.corsepiu.local> <1162233076.4748.9.camel@zod.rchland.ibm.com> <1162294431.6667.312.camel@mccallum.corsepiu.local> <1162300897.19145.15.camel@zod.rchland.ibm.com> <45477461.8060606@hhs.nl> Message-ID: <454772B0.5080205@redhat.com> Hans de Goede wrote: > Again let me reverse the question from why a non commercial repo, to why > not? DFSG, clause 6. - ajax From j.w.r.degoede at hhs.nl Tue Oct 31 16:16:29 2006 From: j.w.r.degoede at hhs.nl (Hans de Goede) Date: Tue, 31 Oct 2006 17:16:29 +0100 Subject: [Bug 178162] Review Request: libgeotiff In-Reply-To: <454772B0.5080205@redhat.com> References: <200610301518.k9UFIl2L012360@bugzilla.redhat.com> <1162225546.6667.94.camel@mccallum.corsepiu.local> <1162227632.6667.108.camel@mccallum.corsepiu.local> <1162232000.6667.123.camel@mccallum.corsepiu.local> <1162233076.4748.9.camel@zod.rchland.ibm.com> <1162294431.6667.312.camel@mccallum.corsepiu.local> <1162300897.19145.15.camel@zod.rchland.ibm.com> <45477461.8060606@hhs.nl> <454772B0.5080205@redhat.com> Message-ID: <454776DD.7060003@hhs.nl> Adam Jackson wrote: > Hans de Goede wrote: > >> Again let me reverse the question from why a non commercial repo, to why >> not? > > DFSG, clause 6. > I find it amusing that you point at Debian, while they do have an official non free add on repo. I'm not pleading to make Fedora Base (Core + Extras) non free, thats the last thing I would want. I'm pleading for a non commercial addon repo, which is disabled by default! Regards, Hans From j.w.r.degoede at hhs.nl Tue Oct 31 16:17:17 2006 From: j.w.r.degoede at hhs.nl (Hans de Goede) Date: Tue, 31 Oct 2006 17:17:17 +0100 Subject: [Bug 178162] Review Request: libgeotiff In-Reply-To: <1162305624.3044.29.camel@laptopd505.fenrus.org> References: <200610301518.k9UFIl2L012360@bugzilla.redhat.com> <1162225546.6667.94.camel@mccallum.corsepiu.local> <1162227632.6667.108.camel@mccallum.corsepiu.local> <1162232000.6667.123.camel@mccallum.corsepiu.local> <1162233076.4748.9.camel@zod.rchland.ibm.com> <1162294431.6667.312.camel@mccallum.corsepiu.local> <1162300897.19145.15.camel@zod.rchland.ibm.com> <20061031135849.GA2251@free.fr> <1162305624.3044.29.camel@laptopd505.fenrus.org> Message-ID: <4547770D.5050400@hhs.nl> Arjan van de Ven wrote: > On Tue, 2006-10-31 at 14:58 +0100, Patrice Dumas wrote: >> On Tue, Oct 31, 2006 at 07:21:37AM -0600, Josh Boyer wrote: >>> Well, to paraphrase a conversation I had with a few people yesterday, >>> you have to draw the line somewhere. The "no use restrictions" is a >>> reasonable one. >> Not necessarily. it rules out openmotif, although it seems to me that >> it would fit perfectly in this repo. > > > I think before making rules like this, there is a more fundamental > discussion needed: Right now Fedora has a very explicit goal that it > should be ok for 3rd parties to create physical media and sell that for > profit. > > This rule originates I suspect in part from the entire "Oh my god Red > Hat no longer makes media" slashdot crowd effect, but as a whole I think > it does make sense. > > As long as that goal is there, trying to make a decision tree that > undermines the goal is more or less pointless imo; it's a lot better to > first agree/disagree about this goal and THEN look deeper. > Patrice's way of looking at this is unfortunate (atleast for me and Ralf) what I want is not to make Fedora Base (Core + Extras) non free, thats the last thing I would want. I'm pleading for a non commercial addon repo, which is disabled by default! Regards, Hans From rdieter at math.unl.edu Tue Oct 31 16:09:00 2006 From: rdieter at math.unl.edu (Rex Dieter) Date: Tue, 31 Oct 2006 10:09:00 -0600 Subject: cURL related rebuilds In-Reply-To: <454771BC.2050504@math.unl.edu> References: <1162297549.29908.17.camel@redhat.usu> <20061031153555.GB2274@free.fr> <45476ECC.3070802@math.unl.edu> <20061031154918.GE2274@free.fr> <454771BC.2050504@math.unl.edu> Message-ID: <4547751C.5060308@math.unl.edu> Rex Dieter wrote: > Patrice Dumas wrote: >> On Tue, Oct 31, 2006 at 09:42:04AM -0600, Rex Dieter wrote: >>> Patrice Dumas wrote: >>> >>> Indeed, most likely all that is required for curl-using apps (that >>> link dynamically) is: >>> -lcurl. >> >> Ok, so what can be done to ameliorate the situation? Direct upstream to >> change dap-config have a switch for static linking, and another for >> dynamic linking? > > IMO, the "best" fix would be to get curl to use pkg-config (instead of > curl-config) and put those static-only libs in > Libs.private = OK, checked cvs, looks like curl already supports pkg-config, good. So now it only needs to be patched (trivial) to use Libs.private : http://bugzilla.redhat.com/213278 -- Rex From pertusus at free.fr Tue Oct 31 16:09:02 2006 From: pertusus at free.fr (Patrice Dumas) Date: Tue, 31 Oct 2006 17:09:02 +0100 Subject: [Bug 178162] Review Request: libgeotiff In-Reply-To: <1162305624.3044.29.camel@laptopd505.fenrus.org> References: <1162225546.6667.94.camel@mccallum.corsepiu.local> <1162227632.6667.108.camel@mccallum.corsepiu.local> <1162232000.6667.123.camel@mccallum.corsepiu.local> <1162233076.4748.9.camel@zod.rchland.ibm.com> <1162294431.6667.312.camel@mccallum.corsepiu.local> <1162300897.19145.15.camel@zod.rchland.ibm.com> <20061031135849.GA2251@free.fr> <1162305624.3044.29.camel@laptopd505.fenrus.org> Message-ID: <20061031160902.GG2274@free.fr> On Tue, Oct 31, 2006 at 03:40:24PM +0100, Arjan van de Ven wrote: > On Tue, 2006-10-31 at 14:58 +0100, Patrice Dumas wrote: > > On Tue, Oct 31, 2006 at 07:21:37AM -0600, Josh Boyer wrote: > > > > > > Well, to paraphrase a conversation I had with a few people yesterday, > > > you have to draw the line somewhere. The "no use restrictions" is a > > > reasonable one. > > > > Not necessarily. it rules out openmotif, although it seems to me that > > it would fit perfectly in this repo. > > > I think before making rules like this, there is a more fundamental > discussion needed: Right now Fedora has a very explicit goal that it > should be ok for 3rd parties to create physical media and sell that for > profit. Indeed, but the proposal is to create a separate repo, with different goals than the pure OSI approved fedora repos. > This rule originates I suspect in part from the entire "Oh my god Red > Hat no longer makes media" slashdot crowd effect, but as a whole I think > it does make sense. But here we discuss about packages for which it is impossible. Of course in the general case it makes sense, but there are many interesting packages, especially for science/education, but not only, which don't fit. > As long as that goal is there, trying to make a decision tree that > undermines the goal is more or less pointless imo; it's a lot better to > first agree/disagree about this goal and THEN look deeper. It is not for fedora extras, but for a repo under fedora umbrella, not necessarily with fedora in the name, but with shared infrastructure. -- Pat From pertusus at free.fr Tue Oct 31 16:10:28 2006 From: pertusus at free.fr (Patrice Dumas) Date: Tue, 31 Oct 2006 17:10:28 +0100 Subject: [Bug 178162] Review Request: libgeotiff In-Reply-To: <4547770D.5050400@hhs.nl> References: <1162227632.6667.108.camel@mccallum.corsepiu.local> <1162232000.6667.123.camel@mccallum.corsepiu.local> <1162233076.4748.9.camel@zod.rchland.ibm.com> <1162294431.6667.312.camel@mccallum.corsepiu.local> <1162300897.19145.15.camel@zod.rchland.ibm.com> <20061031135849.GA2251@free.fr> <1162305624.3044.29.camel@laptopd505.fenrus.org> <4547770D.5050400@hhs.nl> Message-ID: <20061031161028.GH2274@free.fr> On Tue, Oct 31, 2006 at 05:17:17PM +0100, Hans de Goede wrote: > > Patrice's way of looking at this is unfortunate (atleast for me and > Ralf) what I want is not to make Fedora Base (Core + Extras) non free, > thats the last thing I would want. I'm pleading for a non commercial > addon repo, which is disabled by default! There is a little misunderstanding here, I am also talking about this addon repo too, not about Fedora Base... -- Pat From pertusus at free.fr Tue Oct 31 16:14:10 2006 From: pertusus at free.fr (Patrice Dumas) Date: Tue, 31 Oct 2006 17:14:10 +0100 Subject: cURL related rebuilds In-Reply-To: <20061031154918.GE2274@free.fr> References: <1162297549.29908.17.camel@redhat.usu> <20061031153555.GB2274@free.fr> <45476ECC.3070802@math.unl.edu> <20061031154918.GE2274@free.fr> Message-ID: <20061031161410.GI2274@free.fr> I found a message in a debian list which answer most of my questions: http://mailman.mit.edu/pipermail/krbdev/2005-November/003941.html It doesn't respond to the one about the point of view of the application using the library, but I'll investigate more. -- Pat From meme at daughtersoftiresias.org Tue Oct 31 16:14:22 2006 From: meme at daughtersoftiresias.org (Karen Pease) Date: Tue, 31 Oct 2006 10:14:22 -0600 Subject: FE non free repo In-Reply-To: <1162271321.6667.193.camel@mccallum.corsepiu.local> References: <200610301518.k9UFIl2L012360@bugzilla.redhat.com> <45464CAE.2090709@hhs.nl> <1162271321.6667.193.camel@mccallum.corsepiu.local> Message-ID: <200610311014.22404.meme@daughtersoftiresias.org> > I would define it by a simple negated definition: > "OSS packages which fit into Fedora's criteria, except that they do NOT > fit into the OSI definition of "free SW"." Would this repo allow in packages for games developed on the "Quake" model -- an OSS license for the code, but models and artworks under a license that prohibits use in other projects? - Karen From j.w.r.degoede at hhs.nl Tue Oct 31 16:28:45 2006 From: j.w.r.degoede at hhs.nl (Hans de Goede) Date: Tue, 31 Oct 2006 17:28:45 +0100 Subject: [Bug 178162] Review Request: libgeotiff In-Reply-To: <20061031161028.GH2274@free.fr> References: <1162227632.6667.108.camel@mccallum.corsepiu.local> <1162232000.6667.123.camel@mccallum.corsepiu.local> <1162233076.4748.9.camel@zod.rchland.ibm.com> <1162294431.6667.312.camel@mccallum.corsepiu.local> <1162300897.19145.15.camel@zod.rchland.ibm.com> <20061031135849.GA2251@free.fr> <1162305624.3044.29.camel@laptopd505.fenrus.org> <4547770D.5050400@hhs.nl> <20061031161028.GH2274@free.fr> Message-ID: <454779BD.9080109@hhs.nl> Patrice Dumas wrote: > On Tue, Oct 31, 2006 at 05:17:17PM +0100, Hans de Goede wrote: >> Patrice's way of looking at this is unfortunate (atleast for me and >> Ralf) what I want is not to make Fedora Base (Core + Extras) non free, >> thats the last thing I would want. I'm pleading for a non commercial >> addon repo, which is disabled by default! > > There is a little misunderstanding here, I am also talking about this > addon repo too, not about Fedora Base... > Glad to have that sorted out, I already thought as much but your previous mail could be interpreted different and I didn't want to put words in your mouth. Welcome aboard the lobby group for this ADDON repo. Regards, Hans From ajackson at redhat.com Tue Oct 31 16:15:30 2006 From: ajackson at redhat.com (Adam Jackson) Date: Tue, 31 Oct 2006 11:15:30 -0500 Subject: [Bug 178162] Review Request: libgeotiff In-Reply-To: <454776DD.7060003@hhs.nl> References: <200610301518.k9UFIl2L012360@bugzilla.redhat.com> <1162225546.6667.94.camel@mccallum.corsepiu.local> <1162227632.6667.108.camel@mccallum.corsepiu.local> <1162232000.6667.123.camel@mccallum.corsepiu.local> <1162233076.4748.9.camel@zod.rchland.ibm.com> <1162294431.6667.312.camel@mccallum.corsepiu.local> <1162300897.19145.15.camel@zod.rchland.ibm.com> <45477461.8060606@hhs.nl> <454772B0.5080205@redhat.com> <454776DD.7060003@hhs.nl> Message-ID: <454776A2.8080005@redhat.com> Hans de Goede wrote: > I find it amusing that you point at Debian, while they do have an > official non free add on repo. I didn't. I pointed at the Debian Free Software Guidelines, which are the commonly accepted criteria for what defines free software. Debian got them right; that's why we use them, and that's why they define Fedora. "Free for non-commercial use" is restriction on field of endeavor, which directly undermines the intrinsic equality of free software (see Linus' message about "why the GPL2 is a good license" for why that equality is important). Right now we have a very strong criteria for freedom. Weakening that criteria it's a very slippery slope. Why is non-commercial okay? Why not add non-modifiable? Why not add djb code? _That_ is why people are objecting so loudly. And for the record, Debian non-free is utter hypocrisy. - ajax From j.w.r.degoede at hhs.nl Tue Oct 31 16:30:26 2006 From: j.w.r.degoede at hhs.nl (Hans de Goede) Date: Tue, 31 Oct 2006 17:30:26 +0100 Subject: FE non free repo In-Reply-To: <200610311014.22404.meme@daughtersoftiresias.org> References: <200610301518.k9UFIl2L012360@bugzilla.redhat.com> <45464CAE.2090709@hhs.nl> <1162271321.6667.193.camel@mccallum.corsepiu.local> <200610311014.22404.meme@daughtersoftiresias.org> Message-ID: <45477A22.6010103@hhs.nl> Karen Pease wrote: >> I would define it by a simple negated definition: >> "OSS packages which fit into Fedora's criteria, except that they do NOT >> fit into the OSI definition of "free SW"." > > Would this repo allow in packages for games developed on the "Quake" model -- > an OSS license for the code, but models and artworks under a license that > prohibits use in other projects? > If "prohibits use in other projects" is the only use and distribution restriction and we are talking about content not code, then its even ok for FE, we already have a few examples of these. Regards, Hans From jwboyer at jdub.homelinux.org Tue Oct 31 16:23:30 2006 From: jwboyer at jdub.homelinux.org (Josh Boyer) Date: Tue, 31 Oct 2006 10:23:30 -0600 Subject: [Bug 178162] Review Request: libgeotiff In-Reply-To: <45477461.8060606@hhs.nl> References: <200610301518.k9UFIl2L012360@bugzilla.redhat.com> <1162225546.6667.94.camel@mccallum.corsepiu.local> <1162227632.6667.108.camel@mccallum.corsepiu.local> <1162232000.6667.123.camel@mccallum.corsepiu.local> <1162233076.4748.9.camel@zod.rchland.ibm.com> <1162294431.6667.312.camel@mccallum.corsepiu.local> <1162300897.19145.15.camel@zod.rchland.ibm.com> <45477461.8060606@hhs.nl> Message-ID: <1162311810.764.8.camel@zod.rchland.ibm.com> On Tue, 2006-10-31 at 17:05 +0100, Hans de Goede wrote: > > For Fedora Base (aka Core + Extras) I 100% agree but whats wrong with an > additional repo which isn't enabled by default which lies the boundary > at "no use restrictions accept for non commercial use only"? > > Again let me reverse the question from why a non commercial repo, to why > not? You are assuming (incorrectly) that Fedora Base is Core + Extras. That's not the case. Fedora is anything that is under the Fedora Project umbrella. Period. That's why it's not a trivial task to announce an official Fedora project. Having a repository that allows packages under a non-commercial within Fedora goes against the goal that Arjan already explained. Users should be able to take all of the Fedora repositories, make physical media out of it, and sell it. It also opens up some doors I personally would rather avoid. For example, we can't have Extras packages depending on non-commercial packages. And that's something reviewers and maintainers would have to watch for adding extra burden on the reviewing process. We have a slow enough review process as it is... josh From j.w.r.degoede at hhs.nl Tue Oct 31 16:35:58 2006 From: j.w.r.degoede at hhs.nl (Hans de Goede) Date: Tue, 31 Oct 2006 17:35:58 +0100 Subject: [Bug 178162] Review Request: libgeotiff In-Reply-To: <454776A2.8080005@redhat.com> References: <200610301518.k9UFIl2L012360@bugzilla.redhat.com> <1162225546.6667.94.camel@mccallum.corsepiu.local> <1162227632.6667.108.camel@mccallum.corsepiu.local> <1162232000.6667.123.camel@mccallum.corsepiu.local> <1162233076.4748.9.camel@zod.rchland.ibm.com> <1162294431.6667.312.camel@mccallum.corsepiu.local> <1162300897.19145.15.camel@zod.rchland.ibm.com> <45477461.8060606@hhs.nl> <454772B0.5080205@redhat.com> <454776DD.7060003@hhs.nl> <454776A2.8080005@redhat.com> Message-ID: <45477B6E.8040206@hhs.nl> Adam Jackson wrote: > Right now we have a very strong criteria for freedom. Weakening that > criteria it's a very slippery slope. Why is non-commercial okay? Why > not add non-modifiable? Why not add djb code? _That_ is why people are > objecting so loudly. > I don't want to weaken those criteria I fully support them I even applauded the openmotif kicking and spend a considerable amount of testing and fixing build problems against lesstif. All I'm arguing for is an additional repo for goverment / educational / home users for which the non commercial use clause has 0 effect, thus for this large group of users the software is as free as DFSG free software (unless they want to sell it). There is a demand for such a repo and there are multiple FE contributers who would like to see such a repo, so why not. What harm can it do? Regards, Hans From j.w.r.degoede at hhs.nl Tue Oct 31 16:39:34 2006 From: j.w.r.degoede at hhs.nl (Hans de Goede) Date: Tue, 31 Oct 2006 17:39:34 +0100 Subject: [Bug 178162] Review Request: libgeotiff In-Reply-To: <1162311810.764.8.camel@zod.rchland.ibm.com> References: <200610301518.k9UFIl2L012360@bugzilla.redhat.com> <1162225546.6667.94.camel@mccallum.corsepiu.local> <1162227632.6667.108.camel@mccallum.corsepiu.local> <1162232000.6667.123.camel@mccallum.corsepiu.local> <1162233076.4748.9.camel@zod.rchland.ibm.com> <1162294431.6667.312.camel@mccallum.corsepiu.local> <1162300897.19145.15.camel@zod.rchland.ibm.com> <45477461.8060606@hhs.nl> <1162311810.764.8.camel@zod.rchland.ibm.com> Message-ID: <45477C46.5060309@hhs.nl> Josh Boyer wrote: > On Tue, 2006-10-31 at 17:05 +0100, Hans de Goede wrote: >> For Fedora Base (aka Core + Extras) I 100% agree but whats wrong with an >> additional repo which isn't enabled by default which lies the boundary >> at "no use restrictions accept for non commercial use only"? >> >> Again let me reverse the question from why a non commercial repo, to why >> not? > > You are assuming (incorrectly) that Fedora Base is Core + Extras. > That's not the case. Fedora is anything that is under the Fedora > Project umbrella. Period. That's why it's not a trivial task to > announce an official Fedora project. > This need not be an official Fedora project, all we are asking is to be able to use Fedora Extra's infrastructure, also this need not use Fedora in the name of the repo. > Having a repository that allows packages under a non-commercial within > Fedora goes against the goal that Arjan already explained. Users should > be able to take all of the Fedora repositories, make physical media out > of it, and sell it. > > It also opens up some doors I personally would rather avoid. For > example, we can't have Extras packages depending on non-commercial > packages. And that's something reviewers and maintainers would have to > watch for adding extra burden on the reviewing process. We have a slow > enough review process as it is... > Sorry I don't buy this argument, many many reviewers also have other 3th party repositories enabled and -devel packages from them installed. The only thing which will truely show this if a packager makes this rather naive mistake is a mock build and if the default mock configs don't include that repo then for the mock build nothing will change. Regards, Hans From pertusus at free.fr Tue Oct 31 16:33:07 2006 From: pertusus at free.fr (Patrice Dumas) Date: Tue, 31 Oct 2006 17:33:07 +0100 Subject: [Bug 178162] Review Request: libgeotiff In-Reply-To: <454776A2.8080005@redhat.com> References: <1162227632.6667.108.camel@mccallum.corsepiu.local> <1162232000.6667.123.camel@mccallum.corsepiu.local> <1162233076.4748.9.camel@zod.rchland.ibm.com> <1162294431.6667.312.camel@mccallum.corsepiu.local> <1162300897.19145.15.camel@zod.rchland.ibm.com> <45477461.8060606@hhs.nl> <454772B0.5080205@redhat.com> <454776DD.7060003@hhs.nl> <454776A2.8080005@redhat.com> Message-ID: <20061031163307.GJ2274@free.fr> On Tue, Oct 31, 2006 at 11:15:30AM -0500, Adam Jackson wrote: > Hans de Goede wrote: > > Right now we have a very strong criteria for freedom. Weakening that > criteria it's a very slippery slope. Why is non-commercial okay? Why > not add non-modifiable? Why not add djb code? _That_ is why people are > objecting so loudly. I haven't heard so much people loudly objecting. Admitedly if the DFSG/OSI compliance is not used as a criterion for that particular add-on repo, it opens the door for more complicated rules of choice, but it also adds room for adding more packages. If there are enough people ready to take the time to devise a rule for deciding what is sufficiently free for that add-on repo, why should it be an issue? > And for the record, Debian non-free is utter hypocrisy. I don't see why. It is exactly the kind of 'hypocrisy' some people here would like, because it allows the packaging of some interesting software that are not osi-compliant, without being unacceptable. For example, and from the top of my head, there are gdal/libgeotiff, scilab, openmotif. -- Pat From jwboyer at jdub.homelinux.org Tue Oct 31 16:37:39 2006 From: jwboyer at jdub.homelinux.org (Josh Boyer) Date: Tue, 31 Oct 2006 10:37:39 -0600 Subject: [Bug 178162] Review Request: libgeotiff In-Reply-To: <45477C46.5060309@hhs.nl> References: <200610301518.k9UFIl2L012360@bugzilla.redhat.com> <1162225546.6667.94.camel@mccallum.corsepiu.local> <1162227632.6667.108.camel@mccallum.corsepiu.local> <1162232000.6667.123.camel@mccallum.corsepiu.local> <1162233076.4748.9.camel@zod.rchland.ibm.com> <1162294431.6667.312.camel@mccallum.corsepiu.local> <1162300897.19145.15.camel@zod.rchland.ibm.com> <45477461.8060606@hhs.nl> <1162311810.764.8.camel@zod.rchland.ibm.com> <45477C46.5060309@hhs.nl> Message-ID: <1162312659.764.15.camel@zod.rchland.ibm.com> On Tue, 2006-10-31 at 17:39 +0100, Hans de Goede wrote: > > Josh Boyer wrote: > > On Tue, 2006-10-31 at 17:05 +0100, Hans de Goede wrote: > >> For Fedora Base (aka Core + Extras) I 100% agree but whats wrong with an > >> additional repo which isn't enabled by default which lies the boundary > >> at "no use restrictions accept for non commercial use only"? > >> > >> Again let me reverse the question from why a non commercial repo, to why > >> not? > > > > You are assuming (incorrectly) that Fedora Base is Core + Extras. > > That's not the case. Fedora is anything that is under the Fedora > > Project umbrella. Period. That's why it's not a trivial task to > > announce an official Fedora project. > > > > This need not be an official Fedora project, all we are asking is to be > able to use Fedora Extra's infrastructure, also this need not use Fedora > in the name of the repo. So you're asking for free CVS storage, free build systems, and free bugzilla support from the Fedora Project for something that is not official and goes against one of the goals of Fedora? Forgive me if I ignore this thread from now on... josh From enrico.scholz at informatik.tu-chemnitz.de Tue Oct 31 16:49:38 2006 From: enrico.scholz at informatik.tu-chemnitz.de (Enrico Scholz) Date: Tue, 31 Oct 2006 17:49:38 +0100 Subject: cURL related rebuilds In-Reply-To: <20061031154918.GE2274@free.fr> (Patrice Dumas's message of "Tue, 31 Oct 2006 16:49:18 +0100") References: <1162297549.29908.17.camel@redhat.usu> <20061031153555.GB2274@free.fr> <45476ECC.3070802@math.unl.edu> <20061031154918.GE2274@free.fr> Message-ID: <873b94bfbx.fsf@kosh.bigo.ensc.de> pertusus at free.fr (Patrice Dumas) writes: > Ok, so what can be done to ameliorate the situation? Direct upstream > to change dap-config have a switch for static linking, and another for > dynamic linking? > > What is the proper fix (if there is one)? Quick workaround might be the using of '-Wl,--as-needed'. With libtool this might become tricky because this tool reorders linker options. With libraries, I have good experiences with | sed -i -e 's! -shared ! -Wl,--as-needed\0!g' libtool *after* %configure. Dunno, whether this works for applications too. En ...die, libtool, die... rico -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 480 bytes Desc: not available URL: From thias at spam.spam.spam.spam.spam.spam.spam.egg.and.spam.freshrpms.net Tue Oct 31 17:01:26 2006 From: thias at spam.spam.spam.spam.spam.spam.spam.egg.and.spam.freshrpms.net (Matthias Saou) Date: Tue, 31 Oct 2006 18:01:26 +0100 Subject: cURL related rebuilds In-Reply-To: <45476DCA.6080802@city-fan.org> References: <1162297549.29908.17.camel@redhat.usu> <20061031161111.6ba5c38a@python3.es.egwn.lan> <45476DCA.6080802@city-fan.org> Message-ID: <20061031180126.2694b723@python3.es.egwn.lan> Paul Howarth wrote : > Matthias Saou wrote: > > Jindrich Novy wrote : > > > >> I updated cURL yesterday to 7.16.0 which increases soname of > >> libcurl.so.3 to libcurl.so.4. > > > > Seems like some things have changed, given how the camE rebuild has > > failed. Might not be a simple "bump and build" for all packages : > > > > http://buildsys.fedoraproject.org/logs/fedora-development-extras/20628-camE-1.9-8.fc7/i386/build.log > > The CURLOPT_MUTE option has been deprecated (and hasn't done anything) > since curl 7.8: > > http://curl.haxx.se/mail/lib-2001-09/0030.html > > It's finally gone away in 7.16.0, but it shouldn't be too hard to patch > it out of anything that still tries to use it. Indeed, it was pretty trivial to get rid of that obsolete setting 8-) Matthias -- Clean custom Red Hat Linux rpm packages : http://freshrpms.net/ Fedora Core release 6 (Zod) - Linux kernel 2.6.18-1.2798.fc6 Load : 1.31 1.81 1.84 From alan at redhat.com Tue Oct 31 17:29:02 2006 From: alan at redhat.com (Alan Cox) Date: Tue, 31 Oct 2006 12:29:02 -0500 Subject: [Bug 178162] Review Request: libgeotiff In-Reply-To: <454776DD.7060003@hhs.nl> References: <1162227632.6667.108.camel@mccallum.corsepiu.local> <1162232000.6667.123.camel@mccallum.corsepiu.local> <1162233076.4748.9.camel@zod.rchland.ibm.com> <1162294431.6667.312.camel@mccallum.corsepiu.local> <1162300897.19145.15.camel@zod.rchland.ibm.com> <45477461.8060606@hhs.nl> <454772B0.5080205@redhat.com> <454776DD.7060003@hhs.nl> Message-ID: <20061031172902.GB19364@devserv.devel.redhat.com> On Tue, Oct 31, 2006 at 05:16:29PM +0100, Hans de Goede wrote: > I find it amusing that you point at Debian, while they do have an > official non free add on repo. I'm not pleading to make Fedora Base > (Core + Extras) non free, thats the last thing I would want. I'm > pleading for a non commercial addon repo, which is disabled by default! Also DFSG not the "S" - software. There is much content it is handy to package that is not software and is non-commercial. From tcallawa at redhat.com Tue Oct 31 20:09:27 2006 From: tcallawa at redhat.com (Tom 'spot' Callaway) Date: Tue, 31 Oct 2006 14:09:27 -0600 Subject: [Bug 178162] Review Request: libgeotiff In-Reply-To: <45477C46.5060309@hhs.nl> References: <200610301518.k9UFIl2L012360@bugzilla.redhat.com> <1162225546.6667.94.camel@mccallum.corsepiu.local> <1162227632.6667.108.camel@mccallum.corsepiu.local> <1162232000.6667.123.camel@mccallum.corsepiu.local> <1162233076.4748.9.camel@zod.rchland.ibm.com> <1162294431.6667.312.camel@mccallum.corsepiu.local> <1162300897.19145.15.camel@zod.rchland.ibm.com> <45477461.8060606@hhs.nl> <1162311810.764.8.camel@zod.rchland.ibm.com> <45477C46.5060309@hhs.nl> Message-ID: <1162325367.7933.289.camel@dhcp-32-122.ord.redhat.com> On Tue, 2006-10-31 at 17:39 +0100, Hans de Goede wrote: > > Josh Boyer wrote: > > On Tue, 2006-10-31 at 17:05 +0100, Hans de Goede wrote: > >> For Fedora Base (aka Core + Extras) I 100% agree but whats wrong with an > >> additional repo which isn't enabled by default which lies the boundary > >> at "no use restrictions accept for non commercial use only"? > >> > >> Again let me reverse the question from why a non commercial repo, to why > >> not? > > > > You are assuming (incorrectly) that Fedora Base is Core + Extras. > > That's not the case. Fedora is anything that is under the Fedora > > Project umbrella. Period. That's why it's not a trivial task to > > announce an official Fedora project. > > > > This need not be an official Fedora project, all we are asking is to be > able to use Fedora Extra's infrastructure, also this need not use Fedora > in the name of the repo. Ehhhh, if its not an official Fedora project, and doesn't use the name because it doesn't match up with the goals of Fedora, then I really don't think we'd want to have it in the infrastructure. IMHO, you should feel free to take the open source tools that we're using (cvs, plague, mock) and make a separate repository as an addon to what Fedora provides, but this isn't a direction that I think we want to take Fedora. As to items that aren't software, content items, we already have some guidelines in place to include them, and we're always willing to revisit and revise them when people want to include things outside the scope (assuming they've not already been forbidden). ~spot -- Tom "spot" Callaway || Red Hat || Fedora || Aurora || GPG ID: 93054260 "We must not confuse dissent with disloyalty. We must remember always that accusation is not proof and that conviction depends upon evidence and due process of law. We will not walk in fear, one of another. We will not be driven by fear into an age of unreason, if we dig deep in our history and our doctrine, and remember that we are not descended from fearful men -- not from men who feared to write, to speak, to associate and to defend causes that were, for the moment, unpopular." -- Edward R. Murrow, March 9, 1954 From bugs.michael at gmx.net Tue Oct 31 21:55:57 2006 From: bugs.michael at gmx.net (Michael Schwendt) Date: Tue, 31 Oct 2006 22:55:57 +0100 Subject: FESCo critique (was: Re: [Bug 178162] Review Request: libgeotiff) In-Reply-To: <1162301505.19145.25.camel@zod.rchland.ibm.com> References: <200610301518.k9UFIl2L012360@bugzilla.redhat.com> <1162225546.6667.94.camel@mccallum.corsepiu.local> <1162227632.6667.108.camel@mccallum.corsepiu.local> <1162232000.6667.123.camel@mccallum.corsepiu.local> <20061030205021.f6701e03.bugs.michael@gmx.net> <454714C2.3040603@leemhuis.info> <20061031124028.8aff8ce7.bugs.michael@gmx.net> <1162301505.19145.25.camel@zod.rchland.ibm.com> Message-ID: <20061031225557.7d24db7f.bugs.michael@gmx.net> On Tue, 31 Oct 2006 07:31:45 -0600, Josh Boyer wrote: > > Food for thought: Self-nominees who had less than 50% of the possible > > number of votes were able to enter FESCo. So, even if the majority of > > contributors did not vote for them, they were able to join FESCo. It was > > impossible to vote "against" somebody by not voting for him. > > I'd like to personally state that if the community thinks that I as a > FESCo member am not doing a good job for Extras, then they only need to > speak up. Should a large majority call for me to step down, I would do > so willingly. Just my personal thought on that. Assume FESCo continues having 13 seats. Further assume there are 13 nominees prior to the next election. If 60% of the voters from the community didn't want member X in FESCo, what could they do if the old voting scheme was still in place? > > For many decisions, FESCo's +1/-1 style votings are not even needed. > > They just add overhead. > > Example? In the meeting logs. ;o) > > What of > > > > http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Extras/SteeringCommittee/Meetings > > > > is still relevant? As a new contributor, how could I learn about past > > FESCo decisions and the decision of the individual members? > > I'm not sure what you mean. Those are the meeting logs. They are all > relevant to the history of FESCo... What I mean is: That Wiki section has the structure of an archive, and the meeting minutes are misplaced. Assume I return from a four weeks vacation. How am I supposed to learn what important things FESCO has decided on during that time and also learn who from FESCo decided how? I see phrases like "voted down" and "vetoed", but the details are hidden like a needle in a haystack. And no, you don't want your contributors to skim over four meeting minutes in search of anything relevant which is burried beneath "ongoing" action items. So, a split between relevant decisions and normal FESCo chat stuff would be much appreciated. Further, one reason I stepped down from FESCo, inspite of a sufficient number of votes, is that I felt I had been absent from too many meetings. Hence my interest in whether current FESCo members attend meetings more often, and if not, whether they actively pursue Fedora Extras' goals or what else they do. In recent meeting minutes the active members are listed by name, missing members are not. From pertusus at free.fr Tue Oct 31 23:28:26 2006 From: pertusus at free.fr (Patrice Dumas) Date: Wed, 1 Nov 2006 00:28:26 +0100 Subject: [Bug 178162] Review Request: libgeotiff In-Reply-To: <1162325367.7933.289.camel@dhcp-32-122.ord.redhat.com> References: <1162227632.6667.108.camel@mccallum.corsepiu.local> <1162232000.6667.123.camel@mccallum.corsepiu.local> <1162233076.4748.9.camel@zod.rchland.ibm.com> <1162294431.6667.312.camel@mccallum.corsepiu.local> <1162300897.19145.15.camel@zod.rchland.ibm.com> <45477461.8060606@hhs.nl> <1162311810.764.8.camel@zod.rchland.ibm.com> <45477C46.5060309@hhs.nl> <1162325367.7933.289.camel@dhcp-32-122.ord.redhat.com> Message-ID: <20061031232826.GA2278@free.fr> On Tue, Oct 31, 2006 at 02:09:27PM -0600, Tom 'spot' Callaway wrote: > > in the name of the repo. > > Ehhhh, if its not an official Fedora project, and doesn't use the name > because it doesn't match up with the goals of Fedora, then I really > don't think we'd want to have it in the infrastructure. > > IMHO, you should feel free to take the open source tools that we're > using (cvs, plague, mock) and make a separate repository as an addon to > what Fedora provides, but this isn't a direction that I think we want to > take Fedora. That's what will happen anyway. In the mean time everybody will rebuild those packages privately, and after some time ther will be another repo. But the time wasted by fedora contributors in doing private rebuilds and another repo is worth considering. Among the fedora extras contributors there are some people needing those softwares, so helping them may add resources to fedora. So the real issue is to compare the cost of providing the infrastructure and the benefits induced by the spillovers of reduced maintainance costs of non-free packages for fedora extras contributors. -- Pat