Martin Kosek wrote:
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.

I'm not a huge fan of the strict package, I resisted it for a long time. But it does serve its intended purpose: stability for users. I agree it is a pain, particularly in rawhide.

I guess I'm just not convinced that CI is going to catch everything.

rob

_______________________________________________
Freeipa-devel mailing list
Freeipa-devel@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/freeipa-devel

Reply via email to