On Sun, Jan 01, 2023 at 12:06:51PM -0500, Neal Gompa wrote: > On Sat, Dec 31, 2022 at 11:44 AM Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek > <zbys...@in.waw.pl> wrote: > > > > On Sat, Dec 31, 2022 at 11:23:35AM -0500, Neal Gompa wrote: > > > On Sat, Dec 31, 2022 at 11:17 AM Miro Hrončok <mhron...@redhat.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > On 31. 12. 22 15:07, Josh Boyer wrote: > > > > > On Fri, Dec 30, 2022 at 5:17 PM Neal Gompa <ngomp...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > >> > > > > >> On Fri, Dec 30, 2022 at 4:48 PM Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek > > > > >> <zbys...@in.waw.pl> wrote: > > > > >>> > > > > >>> On Fri, Dec 30, 2022 at 02:10:52PM -0500, Neal Gompa wrote: > > > > >>>> On Fri, Dec 30, 2022 at 2:02 PM Ben Cotton <bcot...@redhat.com> > > > > >>>> wrote: > > > > >>>>> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/Rpmautospec_by_Default > > > > >>>> Have we made sure that when Red Hat forks Fedora packages for RHEL > > > > >>>> that they don't truncate or eliminate the Git history anymore? > > > > >>>> Because I would > > > > >>>> personally be very displeased if my historical attribution went > > > > >>>> away > > > > >>>> because of broken processes like the one used to fork all the > > > > >>>> Fedora > > > > >>>> Linux 34 packages for CentOS Stream 9. > > > > >>> > > > > >>> I can't speak for the RH folks who do the forking… It'd be great if > > > > >>> somebody who knows how that's done could answer. > > > > >>> > > > > >>> Fedora is already using rpmautospec widely enough that (if it was to > > > > >>> be problem at all), it must already be a problem. > > > > >>> > > > > >>> At the level of specific solutions, obviously the obvious answer is > > > > >>> to > > > > >>> keep the git history. It's in general a great of source of > > > > >>> information > > > > >>> and discarding that is just an error. But if somebody were really > > > > >>> to do that, > > > > >>> it's fairly trivial to undo the conversion and get a static > > > > >>> changelog > > > > >>> again by inserting the output of 'rpmautospec changelog' in the > > > > >>> %changelog > > > > >>> section. > > > > >>> > > > > >> > > > > >> As they are the most prominent downstream we have, I would like this > > > > >> resolved before changing Fedora's defaults. > > > > >> > > > > >> At the time we branched from Fedora Linux 34, there were very few > > > > >> packages using rpmautospec and I don't think any that were kept used > > > > >> rpmautospec. Now it is very obvious it would be a problem, so I would > > > > >> like that fixed first. CentOS and RHEL infrastructure needs to > > > > >> account > > > > >> for it properly and not gut the Git history. > > > > > > > > > > We can look into it, but at the moment this is unlikely to change on > > > > > the CentOS Stream/RHEL side. > > > > > > > > Are the packages imported on SRPM level with the changelogs rendered? > > > > > > > > > > They are not. It's done using distrobaker[1], which syncs Git content > > > and lookaside data. > > > > > > Example commit: > > > https://gitlab.com/redhat/centos-stream/rpms/pipewire/-/commit/67142e715ecacbf1c94c4d6f8000ef113c1e7c92 > > > > > > [1]: https://github.com/fedora-eln/distrobaker > > > > I don't think that changes in Fedora should be held hostage by some > > downstream > > utils. We know that the problem is solvable and in fact not hard at all. We > > certainly can notify RHEL maintainers about this, which I did right now [1], > > but actual implementation is something that we have no control of from the > > Fedora side. > > > > [1] https://github.com/fedora-eln/distrobaker/issues/12 > > > > I think it's absolutely reasonable to consider the effects of people > forking the packages in a way where attribution is lost. Losing > attribution and correct package history is just not acceptable to me. > > In many respects, this is *extremely* personal to me, because all I > *have* is that attribution. I don't make any money on my work in > Fedora. Nobody pays me to do it. The absolute *least* anyone can do is > respect my copyright and preserve the attribution and history. > > I am insulted that you think that's an issue that can be hand-waved > away. This is a hill I will die on. > > Fix it. And that means fundamentally changing how distrobaker works. > Either preserve the whole Git history or always eliminate rpmautospec > and expand the changelog when importing into RHEL. The current > situation is simply not acceptable.
I fully support what you are saying. I do a lot of work in Fedora on my free time too, and I would very much like for it to be attributed properly. I also agree with the solutions you propose: I wrote the very same suggestions in the issue I linked above. (I also think that the problem already exists, *right now*, because rpmautospec is being used fairly widely, and if attributions are stripped, this is not nice to those maintainers and also deprives downstream users of useful information.) I just don't think that we should ask Fedora contributors to make plans or promises for a downstream distro. You are sending your complaints not to the people who can fix the issue. Zbyszek _______________________________________________ devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org Do not reply to spam, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue
