On 09/05/2013 07:50 PM, Rob Crittenden wrote:
> Martin Kosek wrote:
>> On 08/29/2013 12:22 PM, Tomas Babej wrote:
>>> On 08/29/2013 11:55 AM, Petr Viktorin wrote:
>>>> On 08/28/2013 12:20 PM, Tomas Babej wrote:
>>>>> On 08/28/2013 12:03 PM, Petr Viktorin wrote:
>>>>>> On 08/28/2013 11:46 AM, Tomas Babej wrote:
>>>>>>> On 08/26/2013 10:14 AM, Tomas Babej wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Mon 26 Aug 2013 10:12:09 AM CEST, Petr Vobornik wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 08/26/2013 09:54 AM, Tomas Babej wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> Hi,
>>>>>>>>>> I cooked up a patch for comps that adds a FreeIPA package group.
>>>>>>>>>> Please chime in if you're OK with package selection / description.
>>>>>>>>>> For illustration, see the attached image. FreeIPA will be added as an
>>>>>>>>>> add-on in an installer under the Infrastructure server environment,
>>>>>>>>>> that means, in the included images it will be at the same level
>>>>>>>>>> as DNS or FTP server.
>>>>>>>>>> It will also appear in the Software Selection tool (PackageKit).
>>>>>>>>>> It should also be available under as yum groupinstall "FreeIPA
>>>>>>>>>> server",
>>>>>>>>>> and in PackageKit, as I understand comps is also source for that too.
>>>>>>>>>> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/How_to_use_and_edit_comps.xml_for_package_groups
>>>>>>>>>> https://fedorahosted.org/freeipa/ticket/3630
>>>>>>>>> IMO the Audit part in the description is false advertisement. Same
>>>>>>>>> issue is in package descriptions.
>>>>>>>> I know, it's taken directly from there.
>>>>>>>> I'd rather have it consistent, if we're going to change it here, we
>>>>>>>> should do
>>>>>>>> there too, so that we do not end up with multiple (seemingly
>>>>>>>> incomplete)
>>>>>>>> descriptions at various places.
>>>>>>> Anybody else does have any other concerns? We need to move with this
>>>>>>> effort since string freeze for F20 is coming.
>>>>>>> I'm particulary dubious about including the freeipa-tests package.
>>>>>> I don't think that should be included, developer tests are unnecessary
>>>>>> for a server.
>>>>> It was marked as optional in the initial proposal, but I agree it's
>>>>> unnecessary for
>>>>> it to be there at all.
>>>>>>> We discussed the A (as Audit) part in the description with Rob. The
>>>>>>> fact is
>>>>>>> that this is taken from the freeipa-server package description and
>>>>>>> nobody
>>>>>>> complained in 7 years.
>>>>> Updated tests attached.
>>>> Oh, one more thing I remembered just now -- is it too late?
>>>> We should include bind-dyndb-ldap (which pulls in bind). Preferably as
>>>> default.
>>> I included it there.
>>> If anyone else wants to chime in, please do now, I'll create a ticket with
>>> rel-eng at the end of the day.
>> Thanks for this effort. What is the status of the bug - did you create the
>> request already?
>> We will need to do one more change and remove freeipa-server-strict package 
>> as
>> up on the decision on today's developer meeting we decided to drop this
>> subpackage in Fedora 20 and later and depend on our new FreeIPA Continuous
>> Integration system instead.
> I missed that meeting so maybe I'm re-hashing things, but I don't see how CI
> solves the problem that the strict subpackage does. Sure, it won't be as much 
> a
> surprise to us when other packages are updated, but this doesn't prevent a 
> user
> from also updating to the package. The strict package prevents upgrade until
> we've confirmed that things are actually working. CI does not.

CI should prevent problems at the begging, before they happen - right when the
new Dogtag/Kerberos/389-ds-base is in updates-testing. That gives a change to
give negative Karma and have that package fixed before it hits stable updates.

IMO freeipa-server-strict subpackage is too heavy weight and does not provide
the benefit we would want. So far, IMHO, it was rather a burden for maintainers
and broke quite frequently.


Freeipa-devel mailing list

Reply via email to