Re: percona-xtrabackup bundling the kitchen sink in static libs
On Tue, Aug 23, 2022 at 11:27:55AM -0400, Paul Wouters wrote: > >[1]: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/fesco/Bundled_Software_policy/ > Thanks for the link. Sadly, the justification would be "because upstream > hardcoded this an errors on any other version", which in itself is > pretty weak. And since it includes boost, which can't easilly be > upgraded between fedora releases, all the older stuff lingers forever. There is a little more to it: percona-xtrabackup also comes with mysql (because it is basically running a copy of it's own mysql/innodb to do it's job - just like the other comparable versions around). And this mysql is what is "bound" to that boost version. xtrabackup just inherits this bundling. If you look at the percona-xtrabackup versioning you'll see that the current upstream release is: * percona-xtrabackup-8.0.29-22 and that refers to it's bundling of mysql 8.0.29 > >Non-responsive maintainer policy [2]. This package has CVE bugs > >open [3], There was _one_ CVE bug and that was for the old version of xtrabackup that is not shipped for fedora. I have just closed that bug. The other CVEs are for EPEL builds - while I am in theory interested in fixing epel as well I won't touch it until the fedora branch is in a better state. > Miro started the non-responsive maintainer process and woke up the > maintainer, but they themselves are also thinking it might be better > to kick it out of fedora. > https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1989019 Yes - the build process is cumbersome and it is a bad fit for fedora on that alone. Yet for me it still scratches an itch and being able to do a 'dnf install percona-xtrabackup' is still useful. -- sven ___ 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
Re: Orphaned packages looking for new maintainers (incl. GConf2, keybinder3, orangefs)
On Tue, Apr 14, 2020 at 11:06:27AM +0200, Miro Hrončok wrote: > libacpi orphan 1 weeks ago I have re-claimed this and retired it (and yacpi which depends on it) properly. While I was able to fix the FTBFS, I noticed that libacpi no longer works sufficiently with modern kernels. Last $upstream release for the tools was 2007/2008 ... ... -- sven === jabber/xmpp: s...@lankes.net ___ 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
Re: firefox-wayland and URLs in other programs
On Tue, Apr 02, 2019 at 05:05:50PM +0200, Hans de Goede wrote: > To help testing firefox on wayland I'm running it as my day to day browser > now, but when I click links (specifically in thunderbird) I get a dialog > saying "firefox is running but not responding". I believe this is caused > by thunderbird spawning /usr/bin/firefox to open the link instead of > firefox-wayland. Check your default web application in gnome settings. It does have firefox and firefox-wayland as available applications. This fixed it for me. -- sven === jabber/xmpp: s...@lankes.net ___ devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
Re: Unresponsive maintainer procedure for tuxbrewr
On Tue, Jan 12, 2016 at 01:30:27PM +0100, Michael Schwendt wrote: > Isn't that tedious, inefficient and a waste of time? As all of the unresponsive maintainer procedure. Could we adjust the tooling so that a request for commit access is automatically granted if it isn't answered within three months? -- sven === jabber/xmpp: s...@lankes.net -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org http://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
Re: Unresponsive maintainer procedure for tuxbrewr
On Tue, Jan 12, 2016 at 10:06:40AM -0500, Nico Kadel-Garcia wrote: >> Could we adjust the tooling so that a request for commit access is >> automatically granted if it isn't answered within three months? > That's a potential security problem. If I, for example, can get > commit access to any idle program by claiming it when the original > maintainer is most busy, with no review or doublecheck of my quality > as a new maintainer, I can commit madness on a lot of low maintenance > projects. As I understand it, your sponsor is supposed to look after your commits. > Given so many thousands of Fedora packages, it could get > fascinatingly risky, especially if I start committing intriguing > little '%post' procedures that interfere in subtle ways with other > packages. Yes - there is a risk. But the large number of ignored packages in my mind is the higher security risk. -- sven === jabber/xmpp: s...@lankes.net -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org http://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
Non-responsive Maintainer - helloworld1
Does anyone know how to contact Howard Ning? His package goobook https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1098220 is outdated and because of changes on the google side no longer works these days. Above but is 18+ Months old and Howards last build in Koji was in 2011. I'm interested in taking over maintenance for the above package. -- sven === jabber/xmpp: s...@lankes.net -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org http://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
Re: Remove gcc, gcc-c++ and make from minimal build root
On Tue, Jan 13, 2015 at 12:16:42PM +, Richard W.M. Jones wrote: That's simply an idiotic thing to say. What is the progress involved in adding a new BR to thousands of packages? Am I wrong assuming that it would be rather easy to add the BR to all packages semi-automatically previous to a mass rebuild so that people who want to get rid of gcc for their packages can easily remove it? What am I missing? -- sven === jabber/xmpp: s...@lankes.net -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
Orphaning pympdtouchgui
Hi, I'm orphaning pympdtouchgui - while it may still work I've never actually used it myself and I do not know of any other user of the package. Additionally it hasn't been touched by $upstream in almost four years. -- sven === jabber/xmpp: s...@lankes.net -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
Re: Proposed F19 Feature: Replace MySQL with MariaDB
On Wed, Jan 23, 2013 at 02:12:27AM -0500, Tom Lane wrote: It strikes me that we missed a bet in setting up the mariadb package for only F19-and-up in git. If we made a version available for F18, that would allow people to test compatibility without having to run rawhide, which is something that would give most DBAs the willies. However, that would require facing the problem of how to declare the package vis-a-vis mysql, since we surely can't drop mysql from F18. So I could still use some advice as to how we might work the provides-obsoletes-conflicts mechanics for that. How about just creating an inofficial side-repo on http://repos.fedorapeople.org ? That should be sufficient for testing against F18. -- sven === jabber/xmpp: s...@lankes.net -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: MariaDB in Fedora
On Wed, Jan 16, 2013 at 08:07:30AM -0200, Henrique Junior wrote: Other distros are discussing about the future of MySQL and the implementation of MariaDB as default. What is Fedora position about this matter? There have been a few threads about this. We need facts to get a decision - such a fact would be a mariadb package review with a package that replaces mysql. I've started working on such a package for few months ago but haven't made any significant advances due to personal time constraints. So if anyone else would like to work on this. -- sven === jabber/xmpp: s...@lankes.net -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: MariaDB in Fedora
On Wed, Jan 16, 2013 at 08:44:31AM -0200, Itamar Reis Peixoto wrote: [MariaDB] I think this is going to happen for F19 or F20 http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/packageinfo?packageID=15262 Great news - I totally missed this. This is the package review: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=875150 -- sven === jabber/xmpp: s...@lankes.net -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: MariaDB: Packagers needed
On Sun, Oct 28, 2012 at 01:52:18PM -0600, Renich Bon Ciric wrote: Hi, I am to start packaging MariaDB for Fedora. I've promised monty to get going with packaging MariaDB and I did create some local test packages which do work still need quite a few changes. I got busy with $dayjob for a while but I'm still eager to help move mariadb forward - so count me in. Is there anyone who wants to co-maintain? I'm interested in helping there. This is just me wanting to post it for a package review. The package review is probably going to be long and hard ;) - mariadb will need to conflict with the default mysql packages which is usually not allowed in fedora. So this is going to be interesting. -- sven === jabber/xmpp: s...@lankes.net -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: Unkown Horizons: Does anybody want to comaintain?
On Sun, Oct 28, 2012 at 01:43:01PM -0600, Renich Bon Ciric wrote: # Main http://renich.fedorapeople.org/SPECS/unknown-horizons.spec # Deps http://renich.fedorapeople.org/SPECS/fife.spec Fife is already in Fedora! http://renich.fedorapeople.org/SPECS/python-enet.spec I think the specs are ready. Does anybody want to co-maintain this game? Please make sure to look at the old review request. This is the one for unknown horizons (which never got finished): https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=718430 -- sven === jabber/xmpp: s...@lankes.net -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: MariaDB: Packagers needed
On Sun, Oct 28, 2012 at 11:31:25PM +0100, Kevin Kofler wrote: Uh, conflicting with MySQL is really a no go (just look at how many things require mysql-libs, and even mysql-server is required for Akonadi, and mysql-embedded or Amarok), why isn't the fork renaming its stuff? If the idea is to be a 100% compatible drop-in replacement, then Fedora needs to make a choice whether to ship Oracle's MySQL or MariaDB and then stick to it. That may be the outcome of all of this. But that still means that we need MariaDB packaged first. All forks of mysql are meant as a drop-in replacement. There is also at least PerconaDB with the same problem which would be interesting to package. -- sven === jabber/xmpp: s...@lankes.net -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: Packages in need of new maintainers
On Wed, Oct 03, 2012 at 01:23:02PM -0500, Jon Ciesla wrote: maatkit -- Essential command-line utilities for MySQL I'll take this one. I'm already a co-maintainer. It's deprecated upstream and replaced by the percona toolkit - I'm going to maintain it for now and try to get percona toolkit into f19 and retire maatkit once that is done. -- sven === jabber/xmpp: s...@lankes.net -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: Adobe opensource font
On Sun, Aug 12, 2012 at 05:24:57PM +0800, Christopher Meng wrote: Recently,adobe got one of its font open-sourced.See [1]. So,is it possible to add it into fedora font library or EPEL? Here is the corresponding review request: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=845743 -- sven === jabber/xmpp: s...@lankes.net -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: Orphaning packages
On Tue, Jan 10, 2012 at 04:40:27PM +1100, Marc Bradshaw wrote: moreutils -- Additional unix utilities docbook2X -- Convert docbook into man and Texinfo perl-Time-Duration -- Time-Duration - rounded or exact English expression of durations I use moreutils on all my machines so I would like to take it and it's dependencies. -- sven === jabber/xmpp: s...@lankes.net -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: Unresponsive Package Maintainer - Gary T. Giesen
On Wed, Nov 02, 2011 at 09:17:49AM -0600, Kevin Fenzi wrote: I've orphaned the following: Thank you. I've taken daemonize and rancid Co-Maintainers very-welcome. -- sven === jabber/xmpp: s...@lankes.net -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: Unresponsive Package Maintainer - Gary T. Giesen
On Sun, Oct 23, 2011 at 11:15:20PM +0200, Sven Lankes wrote: I'm following the procedure at: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Policy_for_nonresponsive_package_maintainers Does anyone know how to contact Gary T. Giesen? I've sent him an email (also CCed on this one) a few months ago requesting co-maintainer status for daemonize without a response. Gary has two open bugs without a response: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=701383 https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=746783 His last koji build was in July 2009 - 27 months ago. No change here. I haven't received a reply so I'm requesting his packages to be orphaned. I would like to take daemonize and rancid. -- sven === jabber/xmpp: s...@lankes.net -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Unresponsive Package Maintainer - Gary T. Giesen
I'm following the procedure at: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Policy_for_nonresponsive_package_maintainers Does anyone know how to contact Gary T. Giesen? I've sent him an email (also CCed on this one) a few months ago requesting co-maintainer status for daemonize without a response. Gary has two open bugs without a response: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=701383 https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=746783 His last koji build was in July 2009 - 27 months ago. -- sven === jabber/xmpp: s...@lankes.net -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: Subject: IMPORTANT: Mandatory password and ssh key change by 2011-11-30
On Wed, Oct 12, 2011 at 05:41:33PM -0400, Sam Varshavchik wrote: Guess how many people will have their password set to abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz. It meets the new criteria. And is much better than abcdefgh which was their old pwd. -- sven === jabber/xmpp: s...@lankes.net -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: Responsibility for rebuilding dependent components, was: F-16 Branched report: 20110920 changes
On Tue, Sep 20, 2011 at 03:19:17PM +0200, Ralf Corsepius wrote: When you have a closer look, you'll notice that such mass rebuilts were being delayed by QA's delay queue and now are stuck. Yeah. I rebuilt maatkit on the 1st of September and it still hasn't made it to the -stable repository. It's a mix of it needs to stay in -testing for a week and no update pushes during Alpha/Beta preparation. Didn't we have the time an update had to stay in -testing changed to three days during the F15 stabilization phase? Could we implement this again for F16 to mitigate the issue? -- sven === jabber/xmpp: s...@lankes.net -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: libtool rebuild required for updates-testing
On Sun, Aug 28, 2011 at 01:25:52PM +0200, Reindl Harald wrote: Hello Harald, currently updates-testing offers GVV 4.6.1 (thank you!) but libtool needs a rebuild for dependencies this time the rebuild runs on my testing-VM to rebuild all my packages later on this machine with new GCC, but this should also be in updates-testing Feedback like this is best given in the bodhi update: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/gcc-4.6.1-8.fc15 as you can see gcc has already been unpushed because it has received three negative karma-points. The best way to get an issue like this to the package maintainers is to file a bug and then reference that bug in the bodhi feedback you give. There is already a bug on this issue in rhbz: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=734161 -- sven === jabber/xmpp: s...@lankes.net -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: Unresponsive Package Maintainer - Jeroen van Meeuwen
On Mon, Jun 27, 2011 at 10:38:20AM +0200, Christoph Wickert wrote: I'll ping Jeroen in the meantime, but we are both very busy with out dayjob. In that case approving one or all of the three people who have requested commit access seems sensible. -- sven === jabber/xmpp: s...@lankes.net -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: AutoQA: distro congestion?
On Tue, Apr 19, 2011 at 11:44:03AM +0300, Axel Thimm wrote: This is probably part of the problem, I have been trying to push all 5 packages that are now in testing with bodhi rejecting due to autoqa. Even packages that do have a positive autoqa tag on them like fail2ban-0.8.4-27.fc13. According to the Bodhi-Status-Site, you unpushed the update on 2011-04-17 21:24:29, then submitted it again a few seconds later. It has been pushed to testing on 2011-04-17 21:24:29 and it now needs to stay in testing for a week (or until it has reached sufficient karma including proventester feedback) until it can be pushed to stable. This is what bodhi refers to with Bodhi is now enforcing the Package Update Acceptance Criteria across all Fedora releases. - that text also links to https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Package_update_acceptance_criteria -- sven === jabber/xmpp: s...@lankes.net -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: critpath approval process seems rather broken
On Sun, Apr 10, 2011 at 12:45:56PM -0400, Doug Ledford wrote: And here we are, about to go down the same road again. I have an update in updates-testing, it's getting no love, and the package that's in the release is *known broken*. It has not been updated for systemd to begin with. Nor for tmpfs /var/run. And just like last time, I put out a call for testers on this mailing list. I had a closer look at the raid setup on my f15-box and as the raid was up as expected and poking at the raid with mdadm didn't turn up any issues, I've given it positive karma which has made it Critpath approved. I mostly agree that Fedora as a whole has gone too far in the restrictions that are put in front of packagers to get updates pushed out to the distribution (and I'm not even maintaining any critpath packages). Back when this all started I felt that the promise was that we'll put all this in place now and once AutoQA is ready, it'll all become much easier for everyone. And while AutoQA seems to have come a long way in the last 8 months or so it's still not ready/solid/... enough to be used to base automatic decisions on (I'm not complaining - just stating facts) - so I'm still hopeful that the thumbscrews can be loosened somewhat. But like I tried to explain after F14's fiasco, most people simply don't have the knowledge and hardware to truly test mdadm. It doesn't render my system unbootable, my raid still comes up after the update and casual mdadm calls don't turn up anything suspicious. That is all what I have tested and I don't feel that it's 'not enough'. The requirements on testing updates aren't very high - there just aren't enough testers (also many are testing not-yet-released versions in a vm and those are most likely not set up with a raid array ...). Well, I'm heading out of town for two weeks and will be away from net connectivity. This release's mdadm is what it is and it ain't getting any better. Looking at mdadm I notice two things: 1. The package doesn't have a single co-maintainer. Having two or more people work on it would make I'll be gone for two weeks a non- issue. There must be others interested and knowledgeable in the area that could serve as a backup? 2. You're working on it in bursts - mostly a few weeks before the release. Submitting updates (especially rawhide-updates) more often would also make things easier right before the release. -- sven === jabber/xmpp: s...@lankes.net -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
42 Orphaned packages
After a dispute on the #fedora-kde IRC channel thomasj has orphaned a huge number of packages. I extracted the list from scm-commits emails so I hope that I haven't missed any. The following packages are in need of new owners: luckybackup xine-ui vor stfl spambayes six sentinella recordmydesktop ranpwd qtcurve-kde4 qtcurve-gtk2 qt-recordmydesktop plasma-runner-events newsbeuter metacafe-dl me-tv libvisual-plugins libsysactivity libgnomeuimm26 libgnomemm26 libgnomecanvasmm26 libgcal libexif kpartsplugin kftpgrabber kdocker gtk-recordmydesktop gnome-vfsmm26 glob2 ggz-gtk-client geekcode diffpdf cssed cowbell basket bangarang SDL_ttf SDL_net SDL_mixer grantlee kde-partitionmanager kaffeine SDL_image -- sven === jabber/xmpp: s...@lankes.net -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: ABRT opt-out? (Re: bugzilla bugzappers?)
On Thu, Nov 04, 2010 at 02:21:19PM +0100, Christoph Wickert wrote: [Opt-out for ABRT-Reports] How would you do that? A popup in ABRT that reads Sorry, but the maintainer of this package has decided to not accept any bug reports. Nope. App X crashes and then _nothing_ happens. Just as if abrtd wasn't running. Maybe a hint in the crash-list of the abrt app that the maintainer has decided to not accept abrt generated bug-reports. I like abrt but I'd say that it should be up to the maintainer if he wants to use the tool or not. In particular when ignoring the reports sheds a bad light on the projects bug-response-quality perception. -- sven === jabber/xmpp: s...@lankes.net -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: OpenLayers update?
On Fri, Oct 08, 2010 at 10:31:00PM +0530, Ankur Sinha wrote: Will OpenLayers see any more updates for F13? The version available is 2.8-5.fc12 while latest upstream is 2.10. I'll file an RFE for update if necessary. No, sorry. According to the new fedora update rules, an update like openlayers 2.8 - 2.10 is no longer allowed as the it could break code that is using openlayers (e.g. with the OpenLayers.Layer.Google changes). I have just built 2.10 for F14. -- sven === jabber/xmpp: s...@lankes.net -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: xulrunner 2.0 in rawhide (F15) bundles several system libs
On Thu, Sep 30, 2010 at 06:37:33PM +0900, Takanori MATSUURA wrote: If someone implement --enable-system-libvpx --enable-system-vorbis --enable-system-ogg --enable-system-theora into the mozilla source, we can easily remove source for the libraries. And Fedora will be happy. :-) https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=577653 Looking at how rigorous new packages with bundled libs are fought we should really stop shipping firefox and start shipping Iceweasel. -- sven === jabber/xmpp: s...@lankes.net -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: xulrunner 2.0 in rawhide (F15) bundles several system libs
On Thu, Sep 30, 2010 at 10:09:32AM -0700, Christopher Aillon wrote: https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=577653 Looking at how rigorous new packages with bundled libs are fought we should really stop shipping firefox and start shipping Iceweasel. I personally don't care what we call it. Great. I'm not going to start breaking funny cat videos just to meet packaging ideals on a deadline. I'd rather deal with all you guys complaining on fedora-devel and in fesco tickets than the influx of bugs if I started breaking shit. It's bad enough that there are more bugs than we can handle. I'm not worried too much about a library being system or not. What I'm worried about is twofold: 1. Established packagers of high-profile packages get to do what they want with fedora packages while small-scale packagers of low-profile packages get told to bugger off if they cannot make their packages use system libs (zsync anyone?). Correct me if I'm wrong but as far as I can see none of the chosen ff comitters has actually asked fesco to grant an exception for libvpx, right? Now that the topic has come up there is talk in the ticket that the exception should be granted but that cannot feel right to anyone, can it? 2. The combination of the Mozilla Trademark issue combined with the strict handling of patches by (corporate|distro)-maintainers (I don't think that this is a RH/Fedora issue - same with Canonical/Ubuntu) makes me feel uneasy about ff being called Free sofware. (And yes - I am aware that the other relevant floss-browser is much worse than mozilla wrt. bundling libs and using forked libs). Besides, Mozilla has a good track record of allowing system libs after things settle down, and I have no doubt that we'll get these at some point. This is not what the bug report I quoted says. Unless Sorry, no. has a connotation of but we'll revisit once dust has settled that I'm just not aware of as a non native speaker. Also the bug is not about _using_ the system lib it's just about allowing the user to build against it. From Mozilla's perspective, they could: 1. Do what they are doing now, temporarily not allow a few new system libs, waiting until they get banged into shape and *then* enable system libs (down the road). 2. Bang on the code in private and wait until it meets every Fedora packaging guideline, etc, until committing to the upstream repository, so we all get to wait for all of the cool shit that's happening. 3. Add the patch to their system that would allow people to build against a system lib. -- sven === jabber/xmpp: s...@lankes.net -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: Fedora 14 Beta corrupts user data
On Sun, Sep 26, 2010 at 09:33:49PM +0200, Ralf Ertzinger wrote: Please forgive me for being confused, but isn't the default for Fedora to build with -O2? The issue exists for code compiled with at least -O1 - so -O2 compiled code is affected as well. -- sven === jabber/xmpp: s...@lankes.net -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: Voting Process [WAS: FESCo decision on systemd]
On Wed, Sep 15, 2010 at 12:36:40PM -0500, Mike McGrath wrote: Gregdek mentioned voter fatigue on FAB a while back. I know exactly what he's talking about though I'm not quite sure how to fix it. I suppose meeting fatigue isn't much different. http://www.public-software-group.org/liquid_feedback maybe? -- sven === jabber/xmpp: s...@lankes.net -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: fedora mission (was Re: systemd and changes)
On Mon, Aug 30, 2010 at 03:09:06PM -0400, Jon Masters wrote: Fedora is being ruined by this kind of behavior. You can have progress, cutting edge, etc. without having to be unstable and unpredictable in the process. A lot has been done in the last couple of months in that direction. Proventesters and no more updates directly to stable are there now, repos.fpo is gaining traction and AutoQA is hopefully coming real soon now too. Compared to the F7 - F13 timeframe these are already quite intrusive changes. How about giving it a release to see how those changes work out before pushing for even more radical changes? Also - and this is a question that I have asked myself and others a couple of times - if you could implement Fedora the way you want: What unique selling points are left for Fedora? Fedora is Ubuntu with rpm sounds about as bad as Fedora is broken most of the time (not that I feel it is). As I've said, on systems not directly connected I just don't bother doing updates ever. I suspect before too long some effort will get formed to do a more stable version of Fedora Don't we already have that in F n-1? -- sven === jabber/xmpp: s...@lankes.net -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: fedora mission (was Re: systemd and changes)
On Mon, Aug 30, 2010 at 12:36:42PM -0700, Jesse Keating wrote: Why not give QA the time to settle and find out how the new things work out? Because the likes of Kevin throw fits whenever we try to insert any QA time or seem to try and improve the quality of our updates in any way other than throw more of them at people. So you're saying we cannot test the new qa and update-process 'achievements' for a while because Kevin doesn't like them? -- sven === jabber/xmpp: s...@lankes.net -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: fedora mission (was Re: systemd and changes)
On Mon, Aug 30, 2010 at 04:01:25PM -0500, Chris Adams wrote: I guess I've never been concerned about unique selling points. Why should it be Fedora is Ubuntu with RPM, instead of Ubuntu is Fedora with DEB? IIRC Fedora came first (and certainly RHL came before Ubuntu, although Debian was little before RHL). That doesn't matter much. Ubuntu is where the users are. Why do we need to be concerned about being similar to or different from Ubuntu? For me that question is interesting because selling Fedora is what I do at FLOSS-events as a Fedora ambassador and 'what is the difference to ubuntu' is the number one question. This should certainly not affect the direction we're taking with Fedora as it's marketing and marketing needs to market whatever is there - but I still find the question interesting. -- sven === jabber/xmpp: s...@lankes.net -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: [ACTION REQUIRED, v2] orphaned packages in F-14
On Sat, Aug 21, 2010 at 09:00:21AM +0200, Dan Horák wrote: Orphan ogdi because gdal and all the geo applications, it would be good, if the owners of packages that depend on gdal and other base geo libraries would create a SIG or some other group to collectively maintain them There is http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/GIS (and even an irc channel #fedora-gis on freenode) But not a lot is happening there. I think having the gis packages owned by the group 'gis-sig' would be a win. Is this something that is a) wanted and b) being worked on in the infrastructure? -- sven === jabber/xmpp: s...@lankes.net -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: Mailing list guidelines and smartphones
On Sun, Aug 15, 2010 at 12:32:46AM +0200, Sven Lankes wrote: I would like to add something similar to the following to the If You Are Replying to a Message part in the wiki: The fact that you're sending the email from a smart-phone or similar device doesn't invalidate those guidelines. Please consider sending the reply at a later time when you have access to your regular email system or send a private reply instead. I have just added the two sentences to the wiki. Thanks everyone - I'll go and find something else to complain about now. -- sven === jabber/xmpp: s...@lankes.net -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Mailing list guidelines and smartphones
Hi, despite the occasional flamewar and useless argumentation the fedora- mailinglist (and especially the high-traffic 'devel' list) I find that the mailinglist is one of the more pleasant FLOSS related mailinglist to read. This probably because of the fact that there are guidelines and that people not following them receive friendly, off-list reminders. (see https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines ) Smartphones seem to be changing this and the number of full-quote, top-post emails is increasing steadily. This annoys me a lot (yeah right - I'm one of those people who're always complaining about everything). I don't think that the fact that smartphone-clients are incapable of creating email-replies that follow our rules warrants putting a footer in ones mail stating Please excuse me breaking the rules, but I have to because of the contstraints of the device I'm using. I would like to add something similar to the following to the If You Are Replying to a Message part in the wiki: The fact that you're sending the email from a smartphone or similar device doesn't invalidate those guidelines. Please consider sending the reply at a later time when you have access to your regular email system or send a privat reply instead. Opinions? -- sven === jabber/xmpp: s...@lankes.net -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: New bodhi release in production
On Fri, Aug 13, 2010 at 07:21:50PM +0200, Martin Sourada wrote: I wonder why I get the impression that the only ones who strongly oppose this change are you folks from KDE SIG... Are you doing things differently from anyone else in fedora - the rest of us are either more or less neutral or positive towards this new change? I don't think that this about the KDE SIG at all. Not everyone is as passionate (or stubborn) as Kevin. Most fedorians I talk to are watching all the discussions to see if the fedora that is currently being formed with all the changes that are happening is still a distribution that they're comfortable contributing to. And as the only way to get heard is to fuel a flamewar on fedora-devel they just stay silent. [...] I'm for more testing and more conservative update policy in general in stable branches. I don't oppose the ongoing changes in general but still - when I read through fesco meeting logs I am often disappointed by the amount of politics going on and more than once I wished that FESCO as a whole would grow a pair. I for one have decided that I'm going to stop contributing if the 'Stable Update Vision' is going to be implemented as currently discussed. If the powers that be are going to stop maintainers from issuing updates that are not security or bugfix updates then fedora will have turned into a distro that I'm not interested in. -- sven === jabber/xmpp: s...@lankes.net -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: Can anyone contact Balint Christian (rezso)?
On Sun, Aug 01, 2010 at 12:27:53PM -0600, Kevin Fenzi wrote: openlayers I have taken openlayers. -- sven === jabber/xmpp: s...@lankes.net -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: Can anyone contact Balint Christian (rezso)?
On Wed, Jul 28, 2010 at 11:38:59PM -0600, Kevin Fenzi wrote: I would take over gdal and grass if nobody else steps forward to do so (I'd rather have someone with more knowledge in the field of gis be the maintainer). You can talk to the existing co-maintainers and see what you/they would like to do? The only co-maintainer of the two packages was CCed on my previous email - I havent received a reply to that. I would suggest we mass-orphan all packages and see if any co-maintainers step up to take ownership. I can email the respective co-maintainers once the packages are orphaned. https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Policy_for_nonresponsive_package_maintainers has: Once approval has been given, follow PackageMaintainers/CVSAdminProcedure to have ownership of the package changed. In addition to this, the new owner must also reassign any open bugs on that package to themselves. And then CVSAdminProcedure tells me that going through FAS is what needs to happen for ownership-changes. So for a case where the person doing the AWOL procedure wants to take over a package: How would that be done? Does it take a ticket with someone be opened to change ownership after the fesco member approval and 3 day wait? I'll happily fix the wiki page if someone tells me what the workflow is supposed to be. -- sven === jabber/xmpp: s...@lankes.net -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
nonresponsive maintainer policy (was: Re: Can anyone contact Balint Christian (rezso)?)
On Fri, Jul 30, 2010 at 03:28:42PM +0200, Michael Schwendt wrote: I think we should add some policy to address those unmaintained packages, There is the non-responsive maintainer policy already. That policy isn't the easiest one to follow though. I understand that taking someones packages away should never be easy but maybe we could develop some metrics for the awolness of a maintainer and use that to possibly speed up the process. I know that seth worked on something similar based on commit frequency. What I could think of is: * Look at the FAS activity If a maintainer has multiple request for commit rights to his package which have not been answered in a long time that would increase his awolness counter. (This would mean that we need to encourage people to actually deny requests that they don't want to approve - currently it seems to be accepted that denying a request is rude and the more polite way to not approve a commit request is to just ignore it). * Check if he actually has a current certificate to interface with koji * Look at koji activity If a maintainer hasn't done any build in koji for three months or more that would increase his awolness counter. The awolness-counter would only be looked at when someone thinks about starting the awol procedure and it could be used to speed up the process - maybe get an non-responsive Maintainer procedure done in one week instead of four or five. I know that there is the Fast Track procedure but that is for when it may be needed to reassign a package quickly. When I was bit by gdal being in FTBFS for too long (and with it merkaartor which I maintain) I commented on the bugs and waited a while. When that didn't do anything I email Christian and also started work on a fixed package which rsc then built for rawhide using his provenpackager powers. I could have stopped there (and I nearly had done that) without starting the policy procedure - just because the process requires the one interested in getting things fix to do five or six things each a week apart. And looking at the number of awaitaing review maintainers there have been a few people before me who wanted to help get things fixed ... It can't be repeated often enough: We need maintainers for each and every package in the collection. To have packages and bug reports assigned to an inactive person A with provenpackager B doing random upgrades from time to time is a broken system. B ought to become the maintainer instead. And C and D and E in the community also ought to consider joining the package's team of maintainers, too. I agree. But we also need to make it easier for people to do so - if you look at https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/acls/name/gdal (which is one of rezsos packages), it has 6 users with Awaiting Review on commit rights. It's not that people don't want to help out but we're making it too hard for them to do so. -- sven === jabber/xmpp: s...@lankes.net -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: Can anyone contact Balint Christian (rezso)?
On Wed, Jul 21, 2010 at 02:31:19PM +0200, Sven Lankes wrote: Following the process https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Policy_for_nonresponsive_package_maintainers Is someone able to get in touch with Christian Balint (rezso)? His last koji activity was on the 18th of March 2010. I sent a personal email on the 9th of June to which I got no reply. I've opened https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=611487 to track the AWOL procedure. The above bug is now 3+ weeks old and it seems clear that rezso is nonresponsive. Can we please orphan his packages?: packages with co-maintainers: fet gdal grass iverilog libdap mapnik mapserver openlayers packages without any co-maintainers: tinyows geos proj libgeotiff mapbender ogdi I would take over gdal and grass if nobody else steps forward to do so (I'd rather have someone with more knowledge in the field of gis be the maintainer). -- sven === jabber/xmpp: s...@lankes.net -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Can anyone contact Balint Christian (rezso)?
Hi all, Following the process https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Policy_for_nonresponsive_package_maintainers Is someone able to get in touch with Christian Balint (rezso)? His last koji activity was on the 18th of March 2010. I sent a personal email on the 9th of June to which I got no reply. I've opened https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=611487 to track the AWOL procedure. -- sven === jabber/xmpp: s...@lankes.net -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Make pkgdb grant co-maintainer status automatically? (was Re: Non-responsive maintainer fast track procedure for libsndfile)
On Tue, Jul 06, 2010 at 09:21:29AM +1000, Chris Jones wrote: This seems to be happening a lot lately regarding maintainers and/or co-maintainers losing interest in their projects somewhere along the line and just stopping development without any warning and notification to other members who may be interested. Maybe we could tweak the pkgdb in a way that a co-maintainer request would automatically be granted if it isn't answered within a long enough timeframe (say 8 weeks). That way packages with AWOL maintainers could grow co-maintainers without going through the complicated AWOL-process. -- sven === jabber/xmpp: s...@lankes.net -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: Bodhi 0.7.5 release
On Wed, Jun 30, 2010 at 03:37:11PM -0400, Stephen Gallagher wrote: A suggestion: when critical path updates hit updates-testing, a notification should go to both devel@lists.fedoraproject.org and q...@lists.fedoraproject.org to encourage testing. The qa-list has already lost a lot of it's readability for me because of all the trac-mails that are now being sent there (yes - I could filter but I'm not filtering and I notice that I'm paying less attention to the list these days). I would suggest not doing the same for the devel@ list. Call me old-fashioned but I prefer my mailinglist either being filled with human or computer generated messages - not both. -- sven === jabber/xmpp: s...@lankes.net -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: Proposed udpates policy change
On Mon, Mar 08, 2010 at 09:59:29PM +, Matthew Garrett wrote: Before being added to updates, the package must receive a net karma of +3 in Bodhi. [...] It is the expectation of Fesco that the majority of updates should easily be able to garner the necessary karma in a minimal space of time. I don't know what to say. If Fesco is aiming at getting rid of all the pesky packagers maintaining low profile packages: You're well on your way. -- sven === jabber/xmpp: s...@lankes.net -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: Proposed udpates policy change
On Mon, Mar 08, 2010 at 11:12:11PM +, Matthew Garrett wrote: If Fesco is aiming at getting rid of all the pesky packagers maintaining low profile packages: You're well on your way. So, no, that's not the intent and it's realised that this is a problem. We need to work on making it easier for users to see that there are available testing updates and give feedback on them. This is clearly going to take a while, And even if that would be in place (for example by counting non-fas-account bodhi feedback - it isn't counted currently) we would still have the case where a maintainer cannot fix something that is obviously broken without a) pestering others to 'vote for it' or b) claiming that it is a security fix. and there'd undoubtedly going to be some difficulty in getting updates for more niche packages through as a result. All I can say is that if your proposal is accepted, that will mean that I can no longer do my job as a packager (of a few low-profile packages). If others can live with only ever updating things in rawhide then that's fine - that's not something I feel I can do and neither can I be bothered to lobby others to +1 my updates (or create 2 or 3 fake fas accounts to push the updates through on my own). If people have further suggestions for how we can increase the testing base then that would be awesome, but the status quo really doesn't seem sustainable. First of all: Make sure a FAS account isn't required to give feedback and second: don't try to punish the 98% of the packagers that are doing the right thing to make sure the 2% screwing up are stopped. -- sven === jabber/xmpp: s...@lankes.net -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: how to make things better(tm)
On Fri, Mar 05, 2010 at 01:15:50PM +0530, Rahul Sundaram wrote: latest-and-greatest, bleeding edge policy of Fedora. If you would point me to such a bleeding edge policy then I could agree but I believe this is merely assumed by some and if you want the latest always you could use kde-redhat repo Maybe it isn't written down as a policy but in my mind it's a big part of the four foundations. Unless we want to make them freedom friends frozen frustration in the future ... When I 'sell' Fedora at FLOSS events my main two arguments are: 1) Fedora gets you current software - not only is it often first in shipping new stuff (among other projects, I use xorg as an example) in new releases it is also the only major distribution that ships updated versions for a release. 2) It's easy to start contributing. Becoming a package maintainer takes a lot less time than for Debian / Ubuntu and rpm packaging is easier to grasp than building debs. If we continue stacking additional constraints on the packager / update process and switch to a 'security and data-loss bugfixes only' policy for releases then I would loose both arguments and fedora would just be chasing ubuntu. I'd hate to see that happen as I'm pretty sure that the answer to who is the better ubuntu will always be ubuntu. That said I'm pretty excited about the prospect of having AutoQA automatically test and reject updates and making the karma process easier for the user so that it can be promoted and relied upon in the future. -- sven === jabber/xmpp: s...@lankes.net -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: Fedora 13 has been branched!!
On Wed, Feb 17, 2010 at 11:40:15PM +0100, Kevin Kofler wrote: Yes, I know, because I co-maintain a package using qt and I recently read something from the maintainer that he can not push a bugfix update to stable, because a qt override is in the buildroot. The solution there is to talk to us, we can get the Qt 4.6 stuff off the buildroot for a while so he can build his bugfix update. That's what #fedora-kde is for. (IRC is the best communication method for this stuff because it's real time, please use it!) I'm assuming that Till is talking about my comment https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=549717#c2 on merkaartor (which he co-maintains). So nothing to see here - please move on. This is about not being able to do a scratch build of an svn-snapshot of merkaartor. Nothing that I would ever push to a stable release. I am well aware of the possibility to un-push qt from the buildroot but this was not a situation where that was needed. -- sven === jabber/xmpp: s...@lankes.net -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: Name that Tree!
On Sat, Feb 13, 2010 at 07:48:07AM -0800, Jesse Keating wrote: Why not just call it 13 now, and 14 next time, and so on? It doesn't really need to have its own name that's always the same... Mostly because it becomes awkward to talk about things in 13 before 13 is released, In my world it's the other way around - it's awkward to not talk about the current rawhide as F13. Naming it 13 would make the version flow much cleaner - I could decide at one point before the relase to now jump on the 'nextrelease' bandwagon and stay on it until I decide to do the same thing for the next release. Works fine for debianish Distros. -- sven === jabber/xmpp: s...@lankes.net -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: Sindre Pedersen Bjørd al is AWOL, 25 packages looking for new owners
On Wed, Feb 03, 2010 at 12:15:41AM +0100, Christoph Wickert wrote: * xdotool -- Fake keyboard/mouse input I have taken xdotool which I was co-maintaining before. -- sven === jabber/xmpp: s...@lankes.net -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
