Re: Triaging RH Bugzilla and forwarding bugs upstream (Was: F24, small backward steps)
On Fri, Sep 16, 2016 at 09:42:07AM -0700, stan wrote: Wouldn't it make more sense to have a way for package maintainers to decide if a bug was local or upstream, and a button they could push to automatically send it upstream? I really like Stan's idea. The root of this problem lies in the historical fact that most packages just did not have issue tracking, so Fedora and Bugzilla stepped in to orchestrate it on a distribution level. This works splendidly, if God's willing and creeks don't rise: I have a personal experience of submitting a bug, then a fix, and seeing a fixed package enter the main distribution repository within a week or so, fixing the problem for the entire world including myself. That's why I still believe that Bugzilla is the default place to report the issues, followed by coordination with the upstream, of course. On the other hand, if the submitter and/or the Fedora packager can't deliver the fix, the issues will linger; in that case upstream is really where they should migrate to. On 09/16/2016 01:19 PM, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek wrote: Automatically? If I receive a bug upstream, I want to receive it without the distribution's embellishments: I want to know what *upstream* version of the software was used, how I can reproduce the bug using generic installation from sources, and not using the distro package, etc. Also, I don't want to read the full history on the distribution bugtracker, I want to see a concise summary of findings. I want to see an explanation why the bug is an upstream bug, not a distro-specific thing. The person who is forwarding bugs has to all of this by hand, and doing this automatically is infeasible. The better is the enemy of the good. You're right that it would be ideal if upstream got a cleaned up report along the lines you suggested, but the automatic upstream report could essentially link to the Bugzilla entry, which hopefully contains basic setup and reproducibility information---at the very least it registers the issue and establishes communication channel between the upstream developer and Fedora-based reporter. When I run into issues, I tend to follow the original Bugzilla entry with a second comment that at least provides a stack dump showing the crash environment (e.g. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1359395 ); abrt does this automatically. I believe this is helpful to the upstream developers, as they sometimes explicitly confirm. The downside of course is we don't want to firehose upstream with an endless stream of reports, but Stan's idea involves a manual step and therefore should keep that under control. ___ devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Re: Triaging RH Bugzilla and forwarding bugs upstream (Was: F24, small backward steps)
On 19/09/16 20:27, Jóhann B. Guðmundsson wrote: > On 09/18/2016 10:16 PM, Jeff Fearn wrote: > >> Hi, we might be able to extend the External Trackers extension in RH >> Bugzilla to be able to create as >> well as sync bugs. > > Between which issue trackers is that supported? Currently, Bugzilla, Jira, and Salesforce. Cheers, Jeff. -- Jeff Fearn Senior Software Engineer PnT - DevOps - Development Red Hat Asia Pacific Pty Ltd http://dilbert.com/fast/2004-08-17/ PGP Fingerprint: B61A DC52 3E0E B17C 94D7 945C BB37 478C F119 9BCA ___ devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Re: Triaging RH Bugzilla and forwarding bugs upstream (Was: F24, small backward steps)
On 09/18/2016 10:16 PM, Jeff Fearn wrote: Hi, we might be able to extend the External Trackers extension in RH Bugzilla to be able to create as well as sync bugs. Between which issue trackers is that supported? JBG ___ devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Re: Triaging RH Bugzilla and forwarding bugs upstream (Was: F24, small backward steps)
On Mon, 2016-09-19 at 08:16 +1000, Jeff Fearn wrote: > Hi, we might be able to extend the External Trackers extension in RH > Bugzilla to be able to create as > well as sync bugs. > > We've shared the code with upstream to see if they like our approach > so far. > > Fedora is our biggest user community, so we can certainly make some > Fedora specific changes to RH > Bugzilla should it be required. That would be awesome! Michael ___ devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Re: Triaging RH Bugzilla and forwarding bugs upstream (Was: F24, small backward steps)
On 17/09/16 03:19, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek wrote: > On Fri, Sep 16, 2016 at 09:42:07AM -0700, stan wrote: >> On Fri, 16 Sep 2016 10:01:30 -0400 >> Matthew Millerwrote: >> >>> On Thu, Sep 15, 2016 at 05:31:31PM -0700, Adam Williamson wrote: >> So, what if we steer end users away from Bugzilla and >> bug-trackers completely² and to Ask Fedora³ instead? The triage >> team could [...] > But there's no triage team. Adding another layer of indirection > without a dedicated new workforce would likely just divert > resources away from the existing bug fixing process. And before anyone asks - we've tried to have a triage team several times and it has never really worked so far. It's a hard and relatively >>> >>> Right, so, this is part of the context for my idea above. There >>> *isn't* a triage team, but there *is* a community around Ask Fedora, >>> and we could build from that. It wouldn't be the same at all as >>> previous efforts to "bugzilla-garden" >> >> Wouldn't it make more sense to have a way for package maintainers to >> decide if a bug was local or upstream, and a button they could push to >> automatically send it upstream? > > Automatically? If I receive a bug upstream, I want to receive it > without the distribution's embellishments: I want to know what > *upstream* version of the software was used, how I can reproduce the > bug using generic installation from sources, and not using the distro > package, etc. Also, I don't want to read the full history on the > distribution bugtracker, I want to see a concise summary of > findings. I want to see an explanation why the bug is an upstream bug, > not a distro-specific thing. The person who is forwarding bugs has to > all of this by hand, and doing this automatically is infeasible. It could probably be made light weight though. Say a button you click that copies in the OP from the bug, pops up a box for the clicker to enter some useful text in, includes a back link to RH BZ, and creates a bug upstream with that information. Cheers, Jeff. -- Jeff Fearn Senior Software Engineer PnT - DevOps - Development Red Hat Asia Pacific Pty Ltd http://dilbert.com/fast/2004-08-17/ PGP Fingerprint: B61A DC52 3E0E B17C 94D7 945C BB37 478C F119 9BCA ___ devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Re: Triaging RH Bugzilla and forwarding bugs upstream (Was: F24, small backward steps)
On 17/09/16 03:27, Michael Catanzaro wrote: > On Fri, 2016-09-16 at 17:19 +, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek wrote: >> Automatically? If I receive a bug upstream, I want to receive it >> without the distribution's embellishments: I want to know what >> *upstream* version of the software was used, how I can reproduce the >> bug using generic installation from sources, and not using the distro >> package, etc. Also, I don't want to read the full history on the >> distribution bugtracker, I want to see a concise summary of >> findings. I want to see an explanation why the bug is an upstream >> bug, >> not a distro-specific thing. The person who is forwarding bugs has to >> all of this by hand, and doing this automatically is infeasible. > > I don't care so much about all that (it's more important for systemd > due to distro integration), I just want the bug reporter CCed on the > upstream bug, and able to respond when I ask a question. Hi, we might be able to extend the External Trackers extension in RH Bugzilla to be able to create as well as sync bugs. We've shared the code with upstream to see if they like our approach so far. Fedora is our biggest user community, so we can certainly make some Fedora specific changes to RH Bugzilla should it be required. Cheers, Jeff. -- Jeff Fearn Senior Software Engineer PnT - DevOps - Development Red Hat Asia Pacific Pty Ltd http://dilbert.com/fast/2004-08-17/ PGP Fingerprint: B61A DC52 3E0E B17C 94D7 945C BB37 478C F119 9BCA ___ devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Re: Triaging RH Bugzilla and forwarding bugs upstream (Was: F24, small backward steps)
On Fri, 16 Sep 2016 12:27:30 -0500 Michael Catanzarowrote: [snip] > I don't care so much about all that (it's more important for systemd > due to distro integration), I just want the bug reporter CCed on the > upstream bug, and able to respond when I ask a question. Yeah, that would probably be important for everyone. But an email address is available for anyone who can file a bugzilla, so this should be possible. ___ devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Re: Triaging RH Bugzilla and forwarding bugs upstream (Was: F24, small backward steps)
On Fri, 16 Sep 2016 17:19:24 + Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmekwrote: > Automatically? If I receive a bug upstream, I want to receive it > without the distribution's embellishments: I want to know what > *upstream* version of the software was used, how I can reproduce the > bug using generic installation from sources, and not using the distro > package, etc. Also, I don't want to read the full history on the > distribution bugtracker, I want to see a concise summary of > findings. I want to see an explanation why the bug is an upstream bug, > not a distro-specific thing. The person who is forwarding bugs has to > all of this by hand, and doing this automatically is infeasible. You don't want much, do you? :-) A person who can do what you require might as well fix the bug, because they have to know the application almost as well as a developer. (I understand that this an exaggeration, hyperbole, but there is some truth to it also.) 'what upstream version' The version of the problem software is easy to pull out of the src.rpm. 'reproduce the bug using generic installation from sources' The environment where the software runs is *part* of the bug. If the software can't deal with various environments properly, that's a bug in the software. Is upstream saying, our software only works in generic environments and we don't guarantee it, or fix it, anywhere else? If so, they should explicitly state that, or their development environment, and disclaim any other usage. This might make sense if I'm Joe Blow, and I'm running my custom distribution, but for Fedora, Ubuntu, Suse, Debian, Arch, Gentoo, where there are standardization processes? I don't think so. The software resources and scope also matters. If I've created a small app to display some proc variables by myself, with a single computer, that's a different situation than a program like gcc or gnome or kde. 'want to see a concise summary of findings' 'want to see an explanation why the bug is an upstream bug, not a distro-specific' If I'm killing flies or mosquitoes, I want them to land on a block and stand still while I swat them with the fly swatter. But they don't seem to co-operate. Bugs in software are like that. I agree with you that the person who is doing this triage has to have some domain knowledge, and provide a first filter, but I think the filter can be much coarser than you do. That is, I put more onus on the developers than you do. Upstream is free to ignore these tickets like they are being ignored in redhat bugzilla. But if there are a thousand tickets from redhat, ubuntu, debian, suse, arch, debian with the same complaint, I think it would be evidence that there is something wrong with the upstream software (just my opinion), and the developers might want to focus some attention on the problem. i.e. where there's smoke, there's probably fire. This was only a suggestion, in the spirit of mind mapping, or brainstorming, where wild and outrageous ideas of solutions are thrown out to trigger thinking outside the box. And, if nothing else, I learned more about the problem because of your feedback. ___ devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Re: Triaging RH Bugzilla and forwarding bugs upstream (Was: F24, small backward steps)
On Fri, 2016-09-16 at 17:19 +, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek wrote: > Automatically? If I receive a bug upstream, I want to receive it > without the distribution's embellishments: I want to know what > *upstream* version of the software was used, how I can reproduce the > bug using generic installation from sources, and not using the distro > package, etc. Also, I don't want to read the full history on the > distribution bugtracker, I want to see a concise summary of > findings. I want to see an explanation why the bug is an upstream > bug, > not a distro-specific thing. The person who is forwarding bugs has to > all of this by hand, and doing this automatically is infeasible. I don't care so much about all that (it's more important for systemd due to distro integration), I just want the bug reporter CCed on the upstream bug, and able to respond when I ask a question. Michael ___ devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Re: Triaging RH Bugzilla and forwarding bugs upstream (Was: F24, small backward steps)
On Fri, Sep 16, 2016 at 09:42:07AM -0700, stan wrote: > On Fri, 16 Sep 2016 10:01:30 -0400 > Matthew Millerwrote: > > > On Thu, Sep 15, 2016 at 05:31:31PM -0700, Adam Williamson wrote: > > > > > So, what if we steer end users away from Bugzilla and > > > > > bug-trackers completely² and to Ask Fedora³ instead? The triage > > > > > team could [...] > > > > But there's no triage team. Adding another layer of indirection > > > > without a dedicated new workforce would likely just divert > > > > resources away from the existing bug fixing process. > > > And before anyone asks - we've tried to have a triage team several > > > times and it has never really worked so far. It's a hard and > > > relatively > > > > Right, so, this is part of the context for my idea above. There > > *isn't* a triage team, but there *is* a community around Ask Fedora, > > and we could build from that. It wouldn't be the same at all as > > previous efforts to "bugzilla-garden" > > Wouldn't it make more sense to have a way for package maintainers to > decide if a bug was local or upstream, and a button they could push to > automatically send it upstream? Automatically? If I receive a bug upstream, I want to receive it without the distribution's embellishments: I want to know what *upstream* version of the software was used, how I can reproduce the bug using generic installation from sources, and not using the distro package, etc. Also, I don't want to read the full history on the distribution bugtracker, I want to see a concise summary of findings. I want to see an explanation why the bug is an upstream bug, not a distro-specific thing. The person who is forwarding bugs has to all of this by hand, and doing this automatically is infeasible. Zbyszek ___ devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Re: Triaging RH Bugzilla and forwarding bugs upstream (Was: F24, small backward steps)
On Fri, 16 Sep 2016 10:01:30 -0400 Matthew Millerwrote: > On Thu, Sep 15, 2016 at 05:31:31PM -0700, Adam Williamson wrote: > > > > So, what if we steer end users away from Bugzilla and > > > > bug-trackers completely² and to Ask Fedora³ instead? The triage > > > > team could [...] > > > But there's no triage team. Adding another layer of indirection > > > without a dedicated new workforce would likely just divert > > > resources away from the existing bug fixing process. > > And before anyone asks - we've tried to have a triage team several > > times and it has never really worked so far. It's a hard and > > relatively > > Right, so, this is part of the context for my idea above. There > *isn't* a triage team, but there *is* a community around Ask Fedora, > and we could build from that. It wouldn't be the same at all as > previous efforts to "bugzilla-garden" Wouldn't it make more sense to have a way for package maintainers to decide if a bug was local or upstream, and a button they could push to automatically send it upstream? Suppose that if a fedora package has an upstream bug tracker, *fedora* owns a login to their bug tracker. Then, when the maintainer looks at the bug, he or she decides whether to send it upstream by clicking a button. If it is sent upstream, the [yet to be designed and built application] converts it to the appropriate format, logs in to the upstream bug tracker, and puts it there. And it places a message in the bug on redhat bugzilla stating that the bug has been sent upstream for resolution. That leaves the package maintainer dealing only with local bugs, and new releases. Sort of like abort for packages. Lots of issues here, but it greatly simplifies the package maintainer's job.I have 10 bugs today. I look at them and send those for upstream there, with a click. Leaving me 4. Much more manageable. But it takes work to have this happen, mostly one time, but with some ongoing maintenance. Database of upstream logins and passwords has to be built and maintained. Getting a package approved requires a fedora login and password to be approved, or an exception if it doesn't exist, and entry into the database. I don't know how many different kinds of bug trackers there are, but translating bugzilla to multiple other layouts might be an issue. Maybe instead, just place a link to the fedora bugzilla on their bug tracker. Still, this requires programming and maintenance. Is the trade-off of resources worth it? ___ devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Re: Triaging RH Bugzilla and forwarding bugs upstream (Was: F24, small backward steps)
On Fri, Sep 16, 2016 at 10:01 AM, Matthew Millerwrote: > On Thu, Sep 15, 2016 at 05:31:31PM -0700, Adam Williamson wrote: >> > > So, what if we steer end users away from Bugzilla and bug-trackers >> > > completely² and to Ask Fedora³ instead? The triage team could [...] >> > But there's no triage team. Adding another layer of indirection without >> > a dedicated new workforce would likely just divert resources away >> > from the existing bug fixing process. >> And before anyone asks - we've tried to have a triage team several >> times and it has never really worked so far. It's a hard and relatively > > Right, so, this is part of the context for my idea above. There *isn't* > a triage team, but there *is* a community around Ask Fedora, and we > could build from that. It wouldn't be the same at all as previous > efforts to "bugzilla-garden" I appreciate the idea, but I'm not sure it will actually pan out that way. Right now, the bulk of problem reports for users still go to bugzilla either via ABRT or manual filing. Ask is used more for true newbies or for issues where the person doesn't even know where to file the bug. The community helping there can handle the type and number of issues being reported. It's users helping users. If we start directing users to Ask instead of bugzilla in a coordinated effort, I'm afraid a few things will happen: a) The problem of maintainers ignoring bug reports will become even more prevalent because asking them to monitor multiple locations for problem reports. b) Regardless of whether A happens or not, we run the risk of information loss and excess process being implemented. Bugzilla and Ask could be linked somehow, but bridges rarely work well. c) We'll quickly burn the existing Ask community out. This works in IT because they have dedicated customer support teams. We do not. The problem we face is not really the tools we have, but the lack of people dedicated to customer support. Trying to jumpstart one from the Ask community seems to be asking an awful lot. josh ___ devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Re: Triaging RH Bugzilla and forwarding bugs upstream (Was: F24, small backward steps)
On Fri, 16 Sep 2016 10:01:30 -0400 Matthew Millerwrote: > On Thu, Sep 15, 2016 at 05:31:31PM -0700, Adam Williamson wrote: > > > > So, what if we steer end users away from Bugzilla and > > > > bug-trackers completely² and to Ask Fedora³ instead? The triage > > > > team could [...] > > > But there's no triage team. Adding another layer of indirection > > > without a dedicated new workforce would likely just divert > > > resources away from the existing bug fixing process. > > And before anyone asks - we've tried to have a triage team several > > times and it has never really worked so far. It's a hard and > > relatively > > Right, so, this is part of the context for my idea above. There > *isn't* a triage team, but there *is* a community around Ask Fedora, > and we could build from that. It wouldn't be the same at all as > previous efforts to "bugzilla-garden" So, before we start using ask for more things, I'd prefer it be in a better place from a infrastructure point of view at least. Right now ask is running on RHEL6, using an old version of Django and various other old bits. The current plan was to wait until Aurélien gets mailman3/hyperkitty all reviewed and in EPEL7. Then we can package up the newer askbot and use the same Django 1.8 that mailman3 uses. That said, upstream hasn't had a release in about 1.5 years. There's a number of bugs and things that don't work that don't seem to get much attention from upstream. (twitter integration, mailing daily digests of questions/answers, etc) We have been trying to setup a Fedora theme for... well, since we set it up at first. There is now the latest attempt setup on stg: https://ask.stg.fedoraproject.org/en/questions/ It's also not super clear how active the community is there. I see a lot of "No answer" questions on the first page at least, so I am not sure if it would work to try and get them to answer user problems and file bugs. On the other hand, It doesn't hurt to try and see how it goes. :) kevin pgp6_y8ko_BKk.pgp Description: OpenPGP digital signature ___ devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Re: Triaging RH Bugzilla and forwarding bugs upstream (Was: F24, small backward steps)
On Thu, Sep 15, 2016 at 05:31:31PM -0700, Adam Williamson wrote: > > > So, what if we steer end users away from Bugzilla and bug-trackers > > > completely² and to Ask Fedora³ instead? The triage team could [...] > > But there's no triage team. Adding another layer of indirection without > > a dedicated new workforce would likely just divert resources away > > from the existing bug fixing process. > And before anyone asks - we've tried to have a triage team several > times and it has never really worked so far. It's a hard and relatively Right, so, this is part of the context for my idea above. There *isn't* a triage team, but there *is* a community around Ask Fedora, and we could build from that. It wouldn't be the same at all as previous efforts to "bugzilla-garden" -- Matthew MillerFedora Project Leader ___ devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Re: Triaging RH Bugzilla and forwarding bugs upstream (Was: F24, small backward steps)
On Thu, 2016-09-15 at 23:09 +, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek wrote: > > So, what if we steer end users away from Bugzilla and bug-trackers > > completely² and to Ask Fedora³ instead? The triage team could [...] > > > But there's no triage team. Adding another layer of indirection without > a dedicated new workforce would likely just divert resources away > from the existing bug fixing process. And before anyone asks - we've tried to have a triage team several times and it has never really worked so far. It's a hard and relatively thankless job which volunteers rapidly get sick of, and no-one seems terribly interested in paying for it. If someone wants to try again, go for it, but I think any of us who's tried before wouldn't be optimistic about the chances... -- Adam Williamson Fedora QA Community Monkey IRC: adamw | Twitter: AdamW_Fedora | XMPP: adamw AT happyassassin . net http://www.happyassassin.net -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
Re: Triaging RH Bugzilla and forwarding bugs upstream (Was: F24, small backward steps)
On Wed, Sep 14, 2016 at 01:46:53PM -0400, Matthew Miller wrote: > On Wed, Sep 14, 2016 at 09:44:06AM -0500, Jason L Tibbitts III wrote: > > I disagree in general; when the bug volume exceeds a certain amount > > bugzilla basically becomes useless. However, it would be really nice if > > _someone_ looked at RH bugzilla for those packages and did something > > with them. > > > > We used to have "bugzappers". What we really need is someone to do > > triage and to forward bugs on to upstream when appropriate. This > > obviously requires volunteers. > > What I'd _really_ love to see is a layer separating bug trackers from > end users. In IT, there's often a distinction made between "incidents" > and "problems"¹. An incident is Something Bad That Happened to A User; > this may be caused by one or more problems. (And a single problem may > cause multiple incidents.) In big IT shops, it's common to have > helpdesk tickets for incidents, and those may then get linked to bug > tickets on the backend. (Either user-visible or not, depending on the > culture.) > > So, what if we steer end users away from Bugzilla and bug-trackers > completely² and to Ask Fedora³ instead? The triage team could [...] But there's no triage team. Adding another layer of indirection without a dedicated new workforce would likely just divert resources away from the existing bug fixing process. Zbyszek -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
Re: Triaging RH Bugzilla and forwarding bugs upstream (Was: F24, small backward steps)
On Wed, Sep 14, 2016 at 11:21:44AM -0400, Stephen John Smoogen wrote: > On 14 September 2016 at 10:44, Jason L Tibbitts III> wrote> > I disagree in general; when the bug volume exceeds a certain amount > > bugzilla basically becomes useless. However, it would be really nice if > > _someone_ looked at RH bugzilla for those packages and did something > > with them. I disagree: _any_ bugtracker becomes less useful, or more correctly, bugtracking in general becomes harder and more draining when the bug count becomes so high that you cannot remember all the open bugs. Bugzilla might not be the least cumbersome of trackers, but the real problem is having too many bugs and too little maintainers. > > We used to have "bugzappers". What we really need is someone to do > > triage and to forward bugs on to upstream when appropriate. This > > obviously requires volunteers. > > > > I think this is an excellent job for someone who wants to help out. > > Does Gnome have documentation on performing bug triage like our kernel > > team does? https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/KernelBugTriage > > > > All volunteers would really need is accounts at the upstream trackers, > > the will to search for duplicate bugs there, and some basic knowledge of > > when to ask for more information and how to properly select components > > upstream. I would imagine that a large number of the bugs that are > > filed are duplicates of existing bugs anyway. > > > > Note that I sadly don't have any free time to actually help with this. > > I've tried to do kernel bug triage, and it's very, very difficult and > > time consuming. But that's the kernel; I would hope that just sorting > > out Gnome bugs wouldn't be quite so bad. > > > > It is just as bad for pretty much the same reasons: > 1) Do you have access to that system. > 2) Is the problem in the app or in X or in the kernel or the hardware. > 3) If it is in the hardware is it a monitor/video card/motherboard issue > 4) If you think it is in the kernel go to kernel triage > 5) If you thinking it is in X follow the kernel triage but use s/kernel/X/ > 6) If it is in the app can you even figure out what configuration caused it? > 7) Is the bug really in the app or in some side app which it talks to? I think you're painting an overly bleak picture: for most backtraces somebody who knows the code well can tell what's wrong. I don't know the gnome codebase at all, but I look a lot at systemd backtraces, and there's very few "unresolvable" ones for which we cannot determine the reason. I don't think gnome would be different here. Taking the list that Jakub Filak posted [1] as an example. The second most frequent trace on that list is an assertion failure in gdk_event_source_check [2], and the first is a segmentation fault in thumbnail generation [3]. I doesn't sound like hardware issues. [1] https://retrace.fedoraproject.org/faf/problems/?opsysreleases=122=123=51 [2] https://retrace.fedoraproject.org/faf/problems/bthash/?bth=2dc809f76a6e964ae97bca1d5ab19c6e44a52e37=3d180ca127e69c831065f0528626b2dfb4bb2a97=5c45986c061edd916962c68b83caa7540ac07c82=722d98e99bc0a4898af9622f92ca103d0bf2bc38=94e4a7c759fa0e9888ec9abe4255a4e1a6026c86=9786755e1049db543438f825966598ebd2cc1647=e6ca80c9f6ea0704148d59c89228af59df54ae32 [3] https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=1187004 #0 cmsGetColorSpace (hProfile=hProfile@entry=0x0) at cmsio0.c:934 Icc = 0x0 Looks like a standard NULL point crash. > On the other hand, we have this conversation every (or every other) > mid release cycle... so maybe we should just do the play one more > time. Some drama about how Gnome sucks, gets special treatment, or > isn't as special as systemd, is always put upon.. Dunno, to me both systemd and gnome "suffer" the problem of too many users and not enough maintainers. Zbyszek -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
Re: F24, small backward steps
On 09/13/2016 04:41 PM, Bastien Nocera wrote: - Original Message - - Original Message - I'm seeing 24 bugs at: https://apps.fedoraproject.org/packages/fprintd/bugs/all including a potential security one: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/1333882 Fedora's bugzilla is a garbage fire as far as I'm concerned. I already made that abundantly clear I think. I said "garbage fire" when I meant "tire fire". It keeps on burning and I'm too lazy/busy to handle those bugs downstream when the majority of the work, triaging and discussions happen upstream. From the reporters point of view their distribution is seen to them as "upstream" so they don't want to run around the internet chasing down bug trackers ( which they should not have to do if the distribution package maintainers are doing their due diligence ). From upstream point of view their issue tracker the point of origin and they dont want to be chasing down bug trackers in those gazillion downstream distribution using their application or application stack ( which again they should not have to do if the distribution package maintainers are doing their due diligence ). So basically your are just seeing two sides of the same problematic coin. And this problem remains unsolvable while bug trackers and policy surrounding them is so fragmented in the linux ecosystem. I should also note that the Red Hat bugzilla is far too coarse for handling split-up projects like gnome-control-center and gnome-settings-daemon, both of which are connected to multiple system layers (the kernel, systemd, a lot of specialised daemons, windowing systems, and their dependencies) and which have separate maintainers upstream. Could not agree more. Mozilla bugzilla is horrific tool in using and trying to resolve this issue and even if it was not, it cannot be improved to be made even remote usable issue tracker in this scenario due to it not being Fedora only. JBG -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
Re: How to handle "weakly maintained packages" [was Re: F24, small backward steps]
On Wed, Sep 14, 2016 at 2:35 PM, Josh Boyerwrote: > On Wed, Sep 14, 2016 at 2:25 PM, Neal Gompa wrote: >> On Wed, Sep 14, 2016 at 1:52 PM, Matthew Miller >> wrote: >>> On Wed, Sep 14, 2016 at 01:27:45PM -0400, Josh Boyer wrote: > Yes, THIS. Our current model does not really allow us to express this > at all -- there's "orphaned", but that's not user-visible. Our current model actually could express this though. We could put the weakly maintained packages in COPRs, and editions that wish to include them can do so in their default repos. There is also the previous idea of the curated COPR playground. We have the tools, we just need to use them. >>> >>> One problem is that weakly maintained packages are often dependencies >>> and libraries. They're weakly maintained because the person packaging >>> them never really cared about them for their own sake, only for some >>> other application which needs them. That application may be strongly >>> maintained, but the various deps only updated when some issue affects >>> that app. I guess the whole thing could go into a COPR in this kind of >>> case, but I'm not sure that's quite right. >>> >>> >> >> The fundamental problem with this in COPR is that COPR doesn't know >> how to do automatic rebuilds based on changes in the repos it uses. >> For example, with my OBS projects, when the Rawhide repodata is >> updated, OBS automatically properly bumps the Release and rebuilds the >> package so that it works properly with whatever changed in the >> repositories. COPR lacks this capability, but it is needed for >> something like that to work. > > Koji doesn't do this either, yet we seem to get by. I'm not sure I > follow why auto-rebuild is a requirement versus a (very) nice to have. > Koji doesn't do it, because packagers are supposed to rebuild things when they update stuff. When everything is in one place (a single Koji instance), it's easy enough to pull off. And Bodhi catches dep errors on submission of updates if the checks are enabled. Once things are scattered across different systems or instances of systems, it gets really messy and broken. -- 真実はいつも一つ!/ Always, there's only one truth! -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
Re: Triaging RH Bugzilla and forwarding bugs upstream (Was: F24, small backward steps)
On 09/14/2016 05:46 PM, Matthew Miller wrote: What I'd_really_ love to see is a layer separating bug trackers from end users. That layer already exist in the form of irc forum and askbot does it not? ( someone from the support sub-community can provide information how successful these are ) And from my former QA days I cant recall that end users issues being mistakenly reported in bugzilla existed in the first place or was a problem for that matter. ( The steps that are necessary to file a report to begin with, act as a natural filter that prevents that from happening ) I'm only aware of one bug ( arguably misfiled ) against systemd in the distribution that might fall under that category but that is entirely due to the fact those changes slipped through the distribution documentation and announcement radar ( which arguably should have been covered in Gnome ) so end users/administrators simply dont know how they are custom to configure things does not work in certain scenarios with certain components. JBG -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
Re: How to handle "weakly maintained packages" [was Re: F24, small backward steps]
On Wed, Sep 14, 2016 at 2:25 PM, Neal Gompawrote: > On Wed, Sep 14, 2016 at 1:52 PM, Matthew Miller > wrote: >> On Wed, Sep 14, 2016 at 01:27:45PM -0400, Josh Boyer wrote: >>> > Yes, THIS. Our current model does not really allow us to express this >>> > at all -- there's "orphaned", but that's not user-visible. >>> Our current model actually could express this though. We could put >>> the weakly maintained packages in COPRs, and editions that wish to >>> include them can do so in their default repos. There is also the >>> previous idea of the curated COPR playground. >>> We have the tools, we just need to use them. >> >> One problem is that weakly maintained packages are often dependencies >> and libraries. They're weakly maintained because the person packaging >> them never really cared about them for their own sake, only for some >> other application which needs them. That application may be strongly >> maintained, but the various deps only updated when some issue affects >> that app. I guess the whole thing could go into a COPR in this kind of >> case, but I'm not sure that's quite right. >> >> > > The fundamental problem with this in COPR is that COPR doesn't know > how to do automatic rebuilds based on changes in the repos it uses. > For example, with my OBS projects, when the Rawhide repodata is > updated, OBS automatically properly bumps the Release and rebuilds the > package so that it works properly with whatever changed in the > repositories. COPR lacks this capability, but it is needed for > something like that to work. Koji doesn't do this either, yet we seem to get by. I'm not sure I follow why auto-rebuild is a requirement versus a (very) nice to have. josh -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
Re: How to handle "weakly maintained packages" [was Re: F24, small backward steps]
On Wed, Sep 14, 2016 at 1:52 PM, Matthew Millerwrote: > On Wed, Sep 14, 2016 at 01:27:45PM -0400, Josh Boyer wrote: >> > Yes, THIS. Our current model does not really allow us to express this >> > at all -- there's "orphaned", but that's not user-visible. >> Our current model actually could express this though. We could put >> the weakly maintained packages in COPRs, and editions that wish to >> include them can do so in their default repos. There is also the >> previous idea of the curated COPR playground. >> We have the tools, we just need to use them. > > One problem is that weakly maintained packages are often dependencies > and libraries. They're weakly maintained because the person packaging > them never really cared about them for their own sake, only for some > other application which needs them. That application may be strongly > maintained, but the various deps only updated when some issue affects > that app. I guess the whole thing could go into a COPR in this kind of > case, but I'm not sure that's quite right. > > The fundamental problem with this in COPR is that COPR doesn't know how to do automatic rebuilds based on changes in the repos it uses. For example, with my OBS projects, when the Rawhide repodata is updated, OBS automatically properly bumps the Release and rebuilds the package so that it works properly with whatever changed in the repositories. COPR lacks this capability, but it is needed for something like that to work. -- 真実はいつも一つ!/ Always, there's only one truth! -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
How to handle "weakly maintained packages" [was Re: F24, small backward steps]
On Wed, Sep 14, 2016 at 01:27:45PM -0400, Josh Boyer wrote: > > Yes, THIS. Our current model does not really allow us to express this > > at all -- there's "orphaned", but that's not user-visible. > Our current model actually could express this though. We could put > the weakly maintained packages in COPRs, and editions that wish to > include them can do so in their default repos. There is also the > previous idea of the curated COPR playground. > We have the tools, we just need to use them. One problem is that weakly maintained packages are often dependencies and libraries. They're weakly maintained because the person packaging them never really cared about them for their own sake, only for some other application which needs them. That application may be strongly maintained, but the various deps only updated when some issue affects that app. I guess the whole thing could go into a COPR in this kind of case, but I'm not sure that's quite right. -- Matthew MillerFedora Project Leader -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
Re: Triaging RH Bugzilla and forwarding bugs upstream (Was: F24, small backward steps)
On Wed, Sep 14, 2016 at 09:44:06AM -0500, Jason L Tibbitts III wrote: > I disagree in general; when the bug volume exceeds a certain amount > bugzilla basically becomes useless. However, it would be really nice if > _someone_ looked at RH bugzilla for those packages and did something > with them. > > We used to have "bugzappers". What we really need is someone to do > triage and to forward bugs on to upstream when appropriate. This > obviously requires volunteers. What I'd _really_ love to see is a layer separating bug trackers from end users. In IT, there's often a distinction made between "incidents" and "problems"¹. An incident is Something Bad That Happened to A User; this may be caused by one or more problems. (And a single problem may cause multiple incidents.) In big IT shops, it's common to have helpdesk tickets for incidents, and those may then get linked to bug tickets on the backend. (Either user-visible or not, depending on the culture.) So, what if we steer end users away from Bugzilla and bug-trackers completely² and to Ask Fedora³ instead? The triage team could supplement the people already working there to help people with their questions, and rather than linking bug trackers, we could create a tool where high-rep users could push a button to 1) create a bug in the appropriate one and 2) add an answer like: "This looks like it's caused by a bug in $whatever. I've created a ticket in the tracking system for that project, which you can see at $link. If this is sufficient, feel free to mark this as accepted. Otherwise, this will be updated as the underlying bug is worked on." 1. http://www.itskeptic.org/content/how-itil-gets-incident-vs-problem-wrong 2. To be more nuanced: we wouldn't shut it down for technical users, which for this purpose I will definie as "users able to identify the right bugzilla for a particular problem", but we would change all of our end-user-facing documentation to recommend the help system instead. 3. Or something like it. Ask Fedora could use some development work, but that's another story :) -- Matthew MillerFedora Project Leader -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
Re: Triaging RH Bugzilla and forwarding bugs upstream (Was: F24, small backward steps)
On 09/14/2016 07:01 PM, Josh Boyer wrote: My impression is, in many cases, it's ego, which prevents to acknowledge they need "to divert". I'm not sure what you mean by divert. This is a Dinglish "politically correct" phrase to describe "to partially give up/step down", "make room to others" and "hire more people". What I mean, if you feel being overloaded, be honest to your self and "downsize" your tasks/duties. Ralf -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
Re: F24, small backward steps
On Wed, Sep 14, 2016 at 1:23 PM, Matthew Millerwrote: > On Wed, Sep 14, 2016 at 04:44:38PM +, Debarshi Ray wrote: >> (a) The maintenance status of a package is not a binary variable. It >> is easy to imagine a third state - weakly maintained. > > Yes, THIS. Our current model does not really allow us to express this > at all -- there's "orphaned", but that's not user-visible. Our current model actually could express this though. We could put the weakly maintained packages in COPRs, and editions that wish to include them can do so in their default repos. There is also the previous idea of the curated COPR playground. We have the tools, we just need to use them. josh -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
Re: F24, small backward steps
On Wed, Sep 14, 2016 at 04:44:38PM +, Debarshi Ray wrote: > (a) The maintenance status of a package is not a binary variable. It > is easy to imagine a third state - weakly maintained. Yes, THIS. Our current model does not really allow us to express this at all -- there's "orphaned", but that's not user-visible. -- Matthew MillerFedora Project Leader -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
Re: Triaging RH Bugzilla and forwarding bugs upstream (Was: F24, small backward steps)
On Wed, 14 Sep 2016 13:01:14 -0400 Josh Boyerwrote: > Quite simply, there are valid cases where a maintainer, or a group of > maintainers, cannot scale to the number of bugs a package can > generate. The larger and more complex a package, the more likely that > is. That isn't anyone's fault or anyone's ego getting in the way. Agreed. Additionally, there's packages we have that have 0 bugs actually filed against them, but don't work or have serious problems. So, IMHO all this boils down to 'It depends', 'we should try and improve tools for maintainers' and 'we should try and do the best we can with the tools and processes we have'. I think this post (from 6 years ago now) could be helpful: http://www.rants.org/2010/01/bugs-users-and-tech-debt/ If you don't want to click through (but you should, it's a good read), the author posits two things: You shouldn't be worried that you have more bugs and bugs are not actually technical debt so you shouldn't think of them that way. kevin pgpONvSmtv6it.pgp Description: OpenPGP digital signature -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
Re: Triaging RH Bugzilla and forwarding bugs upstream (Was: F24, small backward steps)
On Wed, Sep 14, 2016 at 12:47 PM, Ralf Corsepiuswrote: > On 09/14/2016 06:24 PM, Josh Boyer wrote: >> >> On Wed, Sep 14, 2016 at 11:50 AM, Ralf Corsepius >> wrote: > > >>> In this areas I primarily see 2 groups: >>> - Maintainers, who are overloaded with BZs. >>> IMO, this primarily is an ego problem and partially a project >>> management/leadership problem. >> >> >> I mostly disagree, but even in the small amount I do agree I believe >> you have the order reversed in terms of the primary cause. > > > Well, openly said, if maintainers complain and excuse with "overload" they > in first place should ask themselves, why they can't do better. That is indeed a fair question to ask. > My impression is, in many cases, it's ego, which prevents to acknowledge > they need "to divert". I'm not sure what you mean by divert. If you mean ask for help, then sure. However, help is in very short supply already. Quite simply, there are valid cases where a maintainer, or a group of maintainers, cannot scale to the number of bugs a package can generate. The larger and more complex a package, the more likely that is. That isn't anyone's fault or anyone's ego getting in the way. >>> - A package triggering too many BZs. >>> IMO, this should question the package's quality. >> >> >> We have no bar for software quality, only for initial packaging of >> said software. We rely on package maintainers to ensure things work. >> Sometimes that isn't really known until a wider audience starts using >> the package. That essentially makes this a subset of your original >> problem group of too many BZs. > > > I was primarily referring to ABRT, here. If the reports it generates can not > be processed in reasonable manners, ABRT is useless. I disagree with that. It's rather useful, particularly the retrace side of things. That gives you measurable data on which bugs are being hit the most for a particular package. The generation of reports, whether done by ABRT or a large number of users, is not the problem. The problem is the ratio of people able to process vs. the number overall. josh -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
Re: F24, small backward steps
On Wed, 14 Sep 2016 11:43:31 -0500 Michael Catanzarowrote: > On Wed, 2016-09-14 at 08:33 +0200, Jakub Filak wrote: > > Does GNOME Bugzilla support XMLRPC? Is there any testing instance > > ABRT team > > can play with? > > Yes and yes, but is XMLRPC being removed from upstream Bugzilla? I > think I read that somewhere (but can't find a reference now when I > search). It'd be a bad idea to use it if so. They added a REST api in 5.0 and want people to move to that. "One big addition is a new REST-like endpoint alongside the existing XML-RPC and JSON-RPC endpoints. This will allow clients to access Bugzilla data using standard HTTP calls for easy development. Note: XML-RPC and JSON-RPC are deprecated in favor of REST and will likely be removed in the Bugzilla 7.0 release. " > > One problem I can see is that Fedora users will have to register to > > every > > single upstream bug tracking tool. Using Red Hat Bugzilla as a proxy > > to > > upstream bug tracking tools is pretty convenient. > > I guess Launchpad-style comment proxying is probably too ambitious. Note that hopefully with 5.0 we will have SAML auth, so if bugzilla.gnome.org also picked that up (and other places) people could just login with their Fedora account to all of them. kevin pgpmnj29Nlssg.pgp Description: OpenPGP digital signature -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
Re: Triaging RH Bugzilla and forwarding bugs upstream (Was: F24, small backward steps)
On 09/14/2016 06:24 PM, Josh Boyer wrote: On Wed, Sep 14, 2016 at 11:50 AM, Ralf Corsepiuswrote: In this areas I primarily see 2 groups: - Maintainers, who are overloaded with BZs. IMO, this primarily is an ego problem and partially a project management/leadership problem. I mostly disagree, but even in the small amount I do agree I believe you have the order reversed in terms of the primary cause. Well, openly said, if maintainers complain and excuse with "overload" they in first place should ask themselves, why they can't do better. My impression is, in many cases, it's ego, which prevents to acknowledge they need "to divert". - A package triggering too many BZs. IMO, this should question the package's quality. We have no bar for software quality, only for initial packaging of said software. We rely on package maintainers to ensure things work. Sometimes that isn't really known until a wider audience starts using the package. That essentially makes this a subset of your original problem group of too many BZs. I was primarily referring to ABRT, here. If the reports it generates can not be processed in reasonable manners, ABRT is useless. Ralf -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
Re: F24, small backward steps
On Wed, 2016-09-14 at 09:51 +0200, Pierre-Yves Chibon wrote: > So, I'm going for the crazy idea front here, now that RHBZ is hooked > onto > fedmsg, should we try to write a tool creating bugs on GBZ for each > gnome bugs > created on RHBZ and sync comments between both instances? (well, we > would have > to see if we can get the GBZ onto a message bus of any sort) This would be awesome, but someone has to implement it. Michael -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
Re: F24, small backward steps
On Tue, Sep 13, 2016 at 04:24:02PM -0400, Stephen John Smoogen wrote: > OK this is the most frustrating of a TON of frustrating parts of this > conversation. > > 1. WHY DO WE SHIP PACKAGES THAT WE 'KNOW' AREN'T MAINTAINED? > 2. Why are people 'maintainers' of such packages if they know upstream > is dead and they aren't going to maintain things. > 3. If someone isn't going to read the bugzillas why do we even have > them in bugzilla or the distribution? Because: (a) The maintenance status of a package is not a binary variable. It is easy to imagine a third state - weakly maintained. (b) The maintenance activity can ebb and flow. (c) Just because a package is unmaintained and has unattended bugs, it doesn't mean that it isn't working in the majority of cases. Sometimes I own a package (let's say) FOO simply because it is in the dependency chain of something else that I am actively interested in. At some point in the past, FOO was actively maintained, but that changed over time. Now, I see the bugs accumulate, and every once in a couple of cycles when I get some free time I try to go through some of them. Sometimes somebody else steps up. And if we are lucky, then things might again pick up in the future. Yes, strictly speaking, we should remove FOO but that is often not practical unless the functionality offered by FOO is not interesting anymore, or there is a suitable replacement. Even if there is a replacement, it might take a while to do the port (webkitgtk3/WebKit1 comes to mind). pgpYkf9BBLaUb.pgp Description: PGP signature -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
Re: Triaging RH Bugzilla and forwarding bugs upstream (Was: F24, small backward steps)
On 09/14/2016 02:44 PM, Jason L Tibbitts III wrote: I disagree in general; when the bug volume exceeds a certain amount bugzilla basically becomes useless. However, it would be really nice if _someone_ looked at RH bugzilla for those packages and did something with them. This responsibility falls under those individuals that have signed themselves up with maintaining the component(s) in question in the distribution and call themselves "package maintainers"... JBG -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
Re: Triaging RH Bugzilla and forwarding bugs upstream (Was: F24, small backward steps)
On Wed, Sep 14, 2016 at 11:50 AM, Ralf Corsepiuswrote: > On 09/14/2016 04:44 PM, Jason L Tibbitts III wrote: >>> >>> "RC" == Ralf Corsepius writes: >> >> >> RC> IMO, it should be mandatory for Fedora maintainers to look into RH >> RC> Bugzilla, because that's the product they are "maintaining" and what >> RC> users are using. >> >> I disagree in general; > > Whom do you report problems with HW to in real life? To the manufacturer or > to a component's manufacturer? > > Almost certainly the manufacturer and not to a component's manufacturer. > >> when the bug volume exceeds a certain amount >> bugzilla basically becomes useless. > > > When the bug volume becomes too large, the causes for this should be > analysed and be addressed. > > In this areas I primarily see 2 groups: > - Maintainers, who are overloaded with BZs. > IMO, this primarily is an ego problem and partially a project > management/leadership problem. I mostly disagree, but even in the small amount I do agree I believe you have the order reversed in terms of the primary cause. > - A package triggering too many BZs. > IMO, this should question the package's quality. We have no bar for software quality, only for initial packaging of said software. We rely on package maintainers to ensure things work. Sometimes that isn't really known until a wider audience starts using the package. That essentially makes this a subset of your original problem group of too many BZs. josh -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
Re: F24, small backward steps
On 13 September 2016 at 21:24, Stephen John Smoogenwrote: > On 13 September 2016 at 16:03, Michael Catanzaro wrote: > OK this is the most frustrating of a TON of frustrating parts of this > conversation. > > 1. WHY DO WE SHIP PACKAGES THAT WE 'KNOW' AREN'T MAINTAINED? > 2. Why are people 'maintainers' of such packages if they know upstream > is dead and they aren't going to maintain things. Sometimes an application can be working though upstream is dead and keeping it going on a best-effort basis can provide some functionality that wouldn't exist otherwise. Of course library churn and general moving on of other technology will eventually kill it despite a maintainer's best efforts. This doesn't apply for security issues where providing software with known unpatched problems may be actively harmful. -- imalone http://ibmalone.blogspot.co.uk -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
Re: Triaging RH Bugzilla and forwarding bugs upstream (Was: F24, small backward steps)
On 09/14/2016 04:44 PM, Jason L Tibbitts III wrote: "RC" == Ralf Corsepiuswrites: RC> IMO, it should be mandatory for Fedora maintainers to look into RH RC> Bugzilla, because that's the product they are "maintaining" and what RC> users are using. I disagree in general; Whom do you report problems with HW to in real life? To the manufacturer or to a component's manufacturer? Almost certainly the manufacturer and not to a component's manufacturer. when the bug volume exceeds a certain amount bugzilla basically becomes useless. When the bug volume becomes too large, the causes for this should be analysed and be addressed. In this areas I primarily see 2 groups: - Maintainers, who are overloaded with BZs. IMO, this primarily is an ego problem and partially a project management/leadership problem. - A package triggering too many BZs. IMO, this should question the package's quality. Ralf -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
Re: Triaging RH Bugzilla and forwarding bugs upstream (Was: F24, small backward steps)
On 14 September 2016 at 10:44, Jason L Tibbitts IIIwrote: >> "RC" == Ralf Corsepius writes: > > RC> IMO, it should be mandatory for Fedora maintainers to look into RH > RC> Bugzilla, because that's the product they are "maintaining" and what > RC> users are using. > > I disagree in general; when the bug volume exceeds a certain amount > bugzilla basically becomes useless. However, it would be really nice if > _someone_ looked at RH bugzilla for those packages and did something > with them. > > We used to have "bugzappers". What we really need is someone to do > triage and to forward bugs on to upstream when appropriate. This > obviously requires volunteers. > > I think this is an excellent job for someone who wants to help out. > Does Gnome have documentation on performing bug triage like our kernel > team does? https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/KernelBugTriage > > All volunteers would really need is accounts at the upstream trackers, > the will to search for duplicate bugs there, and some basic knowledge of > when to ask for more information and how to properly select components > upstream. I would imagine that a large number of the bugs that are > filed are duplicates of existing bugs anyway. > > Note that I sadly don't have any free time to actually help with this. > I've tried to do kernel bug triage, and it's very, very difficult and > time consuming. But that's the kernel; I would hope that just sorting > out Gnome bugs wouldn't be quite so bad. > It is just as bad for pretty much the same reasons: 1) Do you have access to that system. 2) Is the problem in the app or in X or in the kernel or the hardware. 3) If it is in the hardware is it a monitor/video card/motherboard issue 4) If you think it is in the kernel go to kernel triage 5) If you thinking it is in X follow the kernel triage but use s/kernel/X/ 6) If it is in the app can you even figure out what configuration caused it? 7) Is the bug really in the app or in some side app which it talks to? Normally you work backwards down the list but you have to cover all the bases as a good many crashes are from something you have nothing to control. Which is why various people find that they go to XYZ bugtracker and get told it isn't the distributions problem because it isn't the OS they used and they can't duplicate. [I am using XYZ because this problem can be generalized to Gnome/KDE/XFCE/Libreoffice/etc.] One of the reasons that bugzappers seemed to fall apart was it was a slog of work that burned out people without much in the way of reward because it never ends. The remaining bugzappers then took more of the load over and over again until you ended up with 1-2 people? Which is also happening with package maintainers. You get packagers with piles of packages burning out and the remaining people taking more and more packages over time. This ends up with people with hundreds of packages that they have under their belt and no way to actually keep track of the bugs on them. On the other hand, we have this conversation every (or every other) mid release cycle... so maybe we should just do the play one more time. Some drama about how Gnome sucks, gets special treatment, or isn't as special as systemd, is always put upon.. then a dramatic quitting around beta and general agreement that we will all do better for the next release. It's just like Shakespeare without iambic pentameter. > - J< > -- > devel mailing list > devel@lists.fedoraproject.org > https://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org -- Stephen J Smoogen. -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
Triaging RH Bugzilla and forwarding bugs upstream (Was: F24, small backward steps)
> "RC" == Ralf Corsepiuswrites: RC> IMO, it should be mandatory for Fedora maintainers to look into RH RC> Bugzilla, because that's the product they are "maintaining" and what RC> users are using. I disagree in general; when the bug volume exceeds a certain amount bugzilla basically becomes useless. However, it would be really nice if _someone_ looked at RH bugzilla for those packages and did something with them. We used to have "bugzappers". What we really need is someone to do triage and to forward bugs on to upstream when appropriate. This obviously requires volunteers. I think this is an excellent job for someone who wants to help out. Does Gnome have documentation on performing bug triage like our kernel team does? https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/KernelBugTriage All volunteers would really need is accounts at the upstream trackers, the will to search for duplicate bugs there, and some basic knowledge of when to ask for more information and how to properly select components upstream. I would imagine that a large number of the bugs that are filed are duplicates of existing bugs anyway. Note that I sadly don't have any free time to actually help with this. I've tried to do kernel bug triage, and it's very, very difficult and time consuming. But that's the kernel; I would hope that just sorting out Gnome bugs wouldn't be quite so bad. - J< -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
Re: F24, small backward steps
On 09/13/2016 07:44 PM, Josh Boyer wrote: That is the crux of the problem with this approach. It is impossible for a user to determine which packages have maintainers that look in RH Bugzilla and which do not. We could have a “Tire Fire” product besides the “Fedora” product in bugzilla.redhat.com, and move the GNOME components to this product, to make clear that these components are treated differently. Florian -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
Re: F24, small backward steps
On Tue, Sep 13, 2016 at 01:20:06PM -0500, Michael Catanzaro wrote: > On Tue, 2016-09-13 at 18:49 +0200, Pierre-Yves Chibon wrote: > > If ABRT is a firehose of bugs flying to RH's bugzilla, would the > > situation be > > really better if the reports were sent to gnome's BZ? > > Yes, it would. Keep in mind that upstream maintainers are responsible > for far fewer packages than Fedora maintainers. A busy GNOME maintainer > might maintain 2-5 packages upstream, but 20-50 Fedora packages (not > counting comaintainence, then we're talking hundreds). It's a lot > easier to look at crashes for 2-5 packages than 20-50 packages. So, I'm going for the crazy idea front here, now that RHBZ is hooked onto fedmsg, should we try to write a tool creating bugs on GBZ for each gnome bugs created on RHBZ and sync comments between both instances? (well, we would have to see if we can get the GBZ onto a message bus of any sort) This would: * allow bugs to be reported upstream where more people can look at them * allow bugs to be reported upstream without the need for the original reporter to create yet another account on yet another BZ * keep the discussion in both places * eventually allow us to tweak things so that we try to report only bugs that are of interest (for example, we could start by reporting all the user-reported bugs, as opposed to those opened by automated tools (ABRT & others)) Call me crazy, but that was in essence my idea behind the question: `would things be really better if the bugs were opened on GBZ?` and you replied `yes` :) Pierre -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
Re: F24, small backward steps
On 09/13/2016 07:19 PM, Paul Wouters wrote: On Tue, 13 Sep 2016, Ralf Corsepius wrote: This is a truly awful experiance from POV of a Fedora user filing bugs :-( We've set a silent trap for them with no warning of the fact that their bug reports are going to be ignored until Fedora EOL procedure closes them :-( One lesson I have learnt in Fedora, is that filing bugs reports against packages owned by certain people equals to sending bugs to /dev/null. IMHO, Fedora should consider to take disciplinary measures against these people. And get less packagers? Yes, why not? A non-responsive maintainer, who is systematically not processing the bugs having been filed against his packages in RHBZ is cheating himself, Fedora's users and the Fedora project. He is not doing his Fedora job. To cut a long story short: Such a person is harmful to everyone being involved and therefore should be facing sanctions. It would be useful if package co-owners would automatically get added to the bugzilla bug, instead of only the package owner. Most packages don't have dedicated aliases for that. Urgh? I thought this was the case? Ralf -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
Re: F24, small backward steps
On 09/13/2016 05:00 PM, Michael Catanzaro wrote: > Hi, > > To be clear, the problem is that a small handful of package maintainers > (including Bastien) are collectively "responsible" for all of the GNOME > and freedesktop components in Fedora (including fprintd), and it's > simply not reasonable to expect them to read all the bugs that are > assigned to them, let alone take the time to forward them upstream. That's why https://retrace.fedoraproject.org/faf/ exists. Overloaded developers can focus on the hottest problems. This link points to F24 and F25 hottest problems in components where Bastien is in charge of maintenance: https://retrace.fedoraproject.org/faf/problems/?opsysreleases=122=123=51 Jakub ABRT -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
Re: F24, small backward steps
On 09/13/2016 07:44 PM, Josh Boyer wrote: That is the crux of the problem with this approach. It is impossible for a user to determine which packages have maintainers that look in RH Bugzilla and which do not. IMO, it should be mandatory for Fedora maintainers to look into RH Bugzilla, because that's the product they are "maintaining" and what users are using. Them not looking into RHBZ to me qualifies as them not doing their job as package maintainer. Ralf -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
Re: F24, small backward steps
On 09/13/2016 06:32 PM, Bastien Nocera wrote: > > > - Original Message - > > > A couple of things could be done to help with that: > - Bring back the x-bugzilla .desktop metadata, and have ABRT file upstream > bugs Does GNOME Bugzilla support XMLRPC? Is there any testing instance ABRT team can play with? One problem I can see is that Fedora users will have to register to every single upstream bug tracking tool. Using Red Hat Bugzilla as a proxy to upstream bug tracking tools is pretty convenient. > - Make ABRT reports more useful (right now it's attaches a *lot* of extra > information, basically everything it can, as files). It's not possible > to search for parts of backtraces in the query tool. Every ABRT report includes either 10 most relevant frames (so called truncated backtrace) or entire backtrace if it's short enough. We would love to make ABRT reports more useful. I am keen to hear suggestions and ideas. Jakub ABRT -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
Re: F24, small backward steps
On Fri, Sep 09, 2016 at 03:53:06PM -0400, Roger Wells wrote: > Just a couple of smallish things after upgrading (via dnf) from F23 to > F24 a couple of months ago: > > 1. deja-dup gui: > > one has to deselect then reselect the Overview option in order > to be offered the "Backup Now" option. > > The details option in the progress dialog will only display two > or three lines, is not resizeable, and does not follow resizing the > entire dialog > > The progress dialog does not wait to be dismissed at the end, > causing any messages about problems (like failure to backup a particular > file) to not be seen > > 2. fingerprint identification: > > The laptop has a fingerprint reader and it works fine. However > I prefer not to use it. The user set up specifies that fingerprint login > is disabled. > > However whenever I am asked for a password the fingerprint > reader blinks until I swipe a finger over it (even after using a > password). > > No fingerprint is registered. > > This is different than F23 where it never blinked. > > 3. Scrolling issues: > > This, edge and natural scrolling via the touchpad, was covered > nicely in a previous thread. > > Solutions offered there work well but should be better > integrated as I am sure they will be. what was the problem here? can you point me to the original thread? Cheers, Peter -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
Re: F24, small backward steps
On Tue, 2016-09-13 at 14:46 -0700, Adam Williamson wrote: > > I'm not sure it really is unmaintained. There was 34.2 release this > April, by the looks of things. > > http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/packageinfo?packageID=10035 Aaaand I do see it in Software now. At long last! -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
Re: F24, small backward steps
On Tue, 2016-09-13 at 17:17 -0400, Roger Wells wrote: > > if it is unmaintained why does its GUI operation change between Fedora > versions? I'm not sure it really is unmaintained. There was 34.2 release this April, by the looks of things. http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/packageinfo?packageID=10035 -- Adam Williamson Fedora QA Community Monkey IRC: adamw | Twitter: AdamW_Fedora | XMPP: adamw AT happyassassin . net http://www.happyassassin.net -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
Re: F24, small backward steps
On Tue, 13 Sep 2016 15:03:28 -0500 Michael Catanzarowrote: > On Tue, 2016-09-13 at 14:33 -0400, Roger Wells wrote: > > It was the first problem, the one with deja-dup > > Where did you report the bug? The upstream bug tracker is [1]. If you > reported it somewhere else, of course you'd be told it's the wrong > place > > Unfortunately, I think deja-dup is unmaintained, so reporting bugs is > not likely to result in fixes. It's not even user-visible, for many > years, now due to some problem with the appdata file. But there's no > chance of a fix if the issue isn't reported, so still a good idea FYI, I fixed the visibility in gnome-software a while back and the maintainer applied my patches. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1237364 kevin pgpXYZkVN0YLj.pgp Description: OpenPGP digital signature -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
Notifying co-maintainers about bug reports (was: F24, small backward steps)
Pierre-Yves Chibon wrote: > Everyone having `watchbugzilla` on a package is automatically cc'ed > to the bug reports. > In the early days of pkgdb2, I had it be: everyone with > `watchbugzilla` or `commit` but I was asked to remove that last > condition [1]. Would it be possible to show that information in the web interface? Explain what effects the various privileges have, and what effects they don't have, so that co-maintainers can predict whether they will notice when bugs are reported. I'm surprised to learn that I won't notice bug reports to packages I co- maintain. I've been assuming that "commit" implied "watchbugzilla" and "watchcommits", because I thought that made sense. Apparently you also thought so originally. I see a link to documentation for sysadmins and developers, but in a few minutes of searching I didn't find any explanations of the privileges there. I don't see anything that explains the web interface to users. Björn Persson pgpu2gi_XbAgM.pgp Description: OpenPGP digital signatur -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
Re: F24, small backward steps
On 09/13/2016 04:03 PM, Michael Catanzaro wrote: > On Tue, 2016-09-13 at 14:33 -0400, Roger Wells wrote: >> It was the first problem, the one with deja-dup > > Where did you report the bug? The upstream bug tracker is [1]. If you > reported it somewhere else, of course you'd be told it's the wrong > place > > Unfortunately, I think deja-dup is unmaintained, so reporting bugs is > not likely to result in fixes. It's not even user-visible, for many > years, now due to some problem with the appdata file. But there's no > chance of a fix if the issue isn't reported, so still a good idea > if it is unmaintained why does its GUI operation change between Fedora versions? > Michael > > [1] https://bugs.launchpad.net/deja-dup > -- > devel mailing list > devel@lists.fedoraproject.org > https://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org > -- Roger Wells, P.E. leidos 221 Third St Newport, RI 02840 401-847-4210 (voice) 401-849-1585 (fax) roger.k.we...@leidos.com -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
Re: F24, small backward steps
On Tue, Sep 13, 2016 at 2:24 PM, Stephen John Smoogenwrote: > On 13 September 2016 at 16:03, Michael Catanzaro wrote: >> On Tue, 2016-09-13 at 14:33 -0400, Roger Wells wrote: >>> It was the first problem, the one with deja-dup >> >> Where did you report the bug? The upstream bug tracker is [1]. If you >> reported it somewhere else, of course you'd be told it's the wrong >> place >> >> Unfortunately, I think deja-dup is unmaintained, so reporting bugs is >> not likely to result in fixes. It's not even user-visible, for many >> years, now due to some problem with the appdata file. But there's no >> chance of a fix if the issue isn't reported, so still a good idea >> > > OK this is the most frustrating of a TON of frustrating parts of this > conversation. > > 1. WHY DO WE SHIP PACKAGES THAT WE 'KNOW' AREN'T MAINTAINED? > 2. Why are people 'maintainers' of such packages if they know upstream > is dead and they aren't going to maintain things. > 3. If someone isn't going to read the bugzillas why do we even have > them in bugzilla or the distribution? Yeah really, I thought this is what orphaned means? -- Chris Murphy -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
Re: F24, small backward steps
On 13 September 2016 at 16:03, Michael Catanzarowrote: > On Tue, 2016-09-13 at 14:33 -0400, Roger Wells wrote: >> It was the first problem, the one with deja-dup > > Where did you report the bug? The upstream bug tracker is [1]. If you > reported it somewhere else, of course you'd be told it's the wrong > place > > Unfortunately, I think deja-dup is unmaintained, so reporting bugs is > not likely to result in fixes. It's not even user-visible, for many > years, now due to some problem with the appdata file. But there's no > chance of a fix if the issue isn't reported, so still a good idea > OK this is the most frustrating of a TON of frustrating parts of this conversation. 1. WHY DO WE SHIP PACKAGES THAT WE 'KNOW' AREN'T MAINTAINED? 2. Why are people 'maintainers' of such packages if they know upstream is dead and they aren't going to maintain things. 3. If someone isn't going to read the bugzillas why do we even have them in bugzilla or the distribution? I am saying this from the point of view that we have put various people in no-win situations and then set them up to fight each other. A. The developer who has to watch N packages that they can't maintain, don't want to maintain, and are going to ignore. B. The user who gets told to file a bug which is never going to be looked at. The only person who is making anything here is the Press person who gets to write a yearly "Why is Fedora so messed up yet again?" Either maintain and watch a package and its bugs or don't. If you can't watch more than 5 packages.. then watch those packages and drop the rest. If the f'ing distro drops down to 200 packages then we can at least say we know those 200 are maintainable and the OS is usable. Then we can ship snappacks of the rest of the software that the user can have a nice big button saying "good luck" > Michael > > [1] https://bugs.launchpad.net/deja-dup > -- > devel mailing list > devel@lists.fedoraproject.org > https://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org -- Stephen J Smoogen. -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
Re: F24, small backward steps
On Tue, 2016-09-13 at 14:33 -0400, Roger Wells wrote: > It was the first problem, the one with deja-dup Where did you report the bug? The upstream bug tracker is [1]. If you reported it somewhere else, of course you'd be told it's the wrong place Unfortunately, I think deja-dup is unmaintained, so reporting bugs is not likely to result in fixes. It's not even user-visible, for many years, now due to some problem with the appdata file. But there's no chance of a fix if the issue isn't reported, so still a good idea Michael [1] https://bugs.launchpad.net/deja-dup -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
Re: F24, small backward steps
On 09/13/2016 12:31 PM, Bastien Nocera wrote: > For which one of the problems you listed? It would certainly have been > interesting to list those in your original mail. It was the first problem, the one with deja-dup > > - Original Message - >> On 09/13/2016 11:09 AM, Daniel P. Berrange wrote: >>> On Tue, Sep 13, 2016 at 10:00:32AM -0500, Michael Catanzaro wrote: Hi, To be clear, the problem is that a small handful of package maintainers (including Bastien) are collectively "responsible" for all of the GNOME and freedesktop components in Fedora (including fprintd), and it's simply not reasonable to expect them to read all the bugs that are assigned to them, let alone take the time to forward them upstream. If you use Red Hat Bugzilla, the right developers may never notice your bug report at all. You have a much better chance filing bugs upstream. You should only use Red Hat Bugzilla for these components if you happen to know there is a specific maintainer who actually looks at the Red Hat bugs for that specific component, or if you're planning to propose it as a release blocker, or if you just don't care whether anybody sees your bug. If you have a packaging bug then it's the right place, but please ping someone to be sure it gets noticed. Of course this is not how Bugzilla is intended to work, but it is how it actually works for GNOME stuff. It's unfortunate, but without some Launchpad-style automatic bug forwarding, this is going to remain the case indefinitely. >>> >>> This is a truly awful experiance from POV of a Fedora user filing bugs :-( >>> We've set a silent trap for them with no warning of the fact that their >>> bug reports are going to be ignored until Fedora EOL procedure closes >>> them :-( >>> >>> Even if we can't enhance Red hat Bugzilla, we can at least do more to >>> alert users to this so they stand a chance of doing the right thing. >>> >>> eg, update the component description to tell user to file in GNOME >>> bugzilla instead, and have a bot that adds a comment to any new bugs >>> that are still filed, closing them WONTFIX and asking the user to >>> re-open against upstream GNOME bugzilla, instead of leaving the bug >>> open and ignored until Fedora EOL. >>> >>> Regards, >>> Daniel >>> >> Thanks for recognizing this. I am the OP. I pretty quickly got a >> response suggesting that I file a bug report "upstream". I did that, or >> so I thought, and immediately got a response from someone that it was >> the wrong place or list followed by another declaring the matter closed. >> I went back to my day job. >> >> >> -- >> Roger Wells, P.E. >> leidos >> 221 Third St >> Newport, RI 02840 >> 401-847-4210 (voice) >> 401-849-1585 (fax) >> roger.k.we...@leidos.com >> -- >> devel mailing list >> devel@lists.fedoraproject.org >> https://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org >> > -- > devel mailing list > devel@lists.fedoraproject.org > https://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org > -- Roger Wells, P.E. leidos 221 Third St Newport, RI 02840 401-847-4210 (voice) 401-849-1585 (fax) roger.k.we...@leidos.com -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
Re: F24, small backward steps
On Tue, 2016-09-13 at 18:49 +0200, Pierre-Yves Chibon wrote: > If ABRT is a firehose of bugs flying to RH's bugzilla, would the > situation be > really better if the reports were sent to gnome's BZ? Yes, it would. Keep in mind that upstream maintainers are responsible for far fewer packages than Fedora maintainers. A busy GNOME maintainer might maintain 2-5 packages upstream, but 20-50 Fedora packages (not counting comaintainence, then we're talking hundreds). It's a lot easier to look at crashes for 2-5 packages than 20-50 packages. Now, it's not going to make things perfect. Some GNOME maintainers don't look at upstream bugs either (but that's comparatively rare). And many packages are just totally unmaintained. But for most components, it would be a big improvement to file the bugs upstream where the right maintainers will see it. Michael -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
Re: F24, small backward steps
On Tue, Sep 13, 2016 at 01:19:04PM -0400, Paul Wouters wrote: > On Tue, 13 Sep 2016, Ralf Corsepius wrote: > > > > This is a truly awful experiance from POV of a Fedora user filing bugs > > > :-( > > > We've set a silent trap for them with no warning of the fact that their > > > bug reports are going to be ignored until Fedora EOL procedure closes > > > them :-( > > > > One lesson I have learnt in Fedora, is that filing bugs reports against > > packages owned by certain people equals to sending bugs to /dev/null. > > > > IMHO, Fedora should consider to take disciplinary measures against these > > people. > > And get less packagers? > > It would be useful if package co-owners would automatically get added to > the bugzilla bug, instead of only the package owner. Most packages don't > have dedicated aliases for that. Everyone having `watchbugzilla` on a package is automatically cc'ed to the bug reports. In the early days of pkgdb2, I had it be: everyone with `watchbugzilla` or `commit` but I was asked to remove that last condition [1]. [1] https://fedorahosted.org/pkgdb2/ticket/10 Pierre -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
Re: F24, small backward steps
On Tue, Sep 13, 2016 at 11:00 AM, Michael Catanzarowrote: > Hi, > > To be clear, the problem is that a small handful of package maintainers > (including Bastien) are collectively "responsible" for all of the GNOME > and freedesktop components in Fedora (including fprintd), and it's > simply not reasonable to expect them to read all the bugs that are > assigned to them, let alone take the time to forward them upstream. If > you use Red Hat Bugzilla, the right developers may never notice your > bug report at all. > > You have a much better chance filing bugs upstream. You should only use > Red Hat Bugzilla for these components if you happen to know there is a > specific maintainer who actually looks at the Red Hat bugs for that > specific component, or if you're planning to propose it as a release That is the crux of the problem with this approach. It is impossible for a user to determine which packages have maintainers that look in RH Bugzilla and which do not. josh -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
Re: F24, small backward steps
On Tue, 13 Sep 2016, Ralf Corsepius wrote: This is a truly awful experiance from POV of a Fedora user filing bugs :-( We've set a silent trap for them with no warning of the fact that their bug reports are going to be ignored until Fedora EOL procedure closes them :-( One lesson I have learnt in Fedora, is that filing bugs reports against packages owned by certain people equals to sending bugs to /dev/null. IMHO, Fedora should consider to take disciplinary measures against these people. And get less packagers? It would be useful if package co-owners would automatically get added to the bugzilla bug, instead of only the package owner. Most packages don't have dedicated aliases for that. Paul -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
Re: F24, small backward steps
On Tue, Sep 13, 2016 at 12:32:20PM -0400, Bastien Nocera wrote: > > > - Original Message - > > > This is a truly awful experiance from POV of a Fedora user filing bugs :-( > > We've set a silent trap for them with no warning of the fact that their > > bug reports are going to be ignored until Fedora EOL procedure closes > > them :-( > > > > Even if we can't enhance Red hat Bugzilla, we can at least do more to > > alert users to this so they stand a chance of doing the right thing. > > > > eg, update the component description to tell user to file in GNOME > > bugzilla instead, and have a bot that adds a comment to any new bugs > > that are still filed, closing them WONTFIX and asking the user to > > re-open against upstream GNOME bugzilla, instead of leaving the bug > > open and ignored until Fedora EOL. > > A couple of things could be done to help with that: > - Bring back the x-bugzilla .desktop metadata, and have ABRT file upstream > bugs > - Make ABRT reports more useful (right now it's attaches a *lot* of extra > information, basically everything it can, as files). It's not possible > to search for parts of backtraces in the query tool. > - More useful templates when filing bugs, explaining where to file RFEs and > non-packaging bugs. As (for GNOME and a lot of other tools) we simply > package upstream, it would be most better to point directly to the > right place to file bugs. If ABRT is a firehose of bugs flying to RH's bugzilla, would the situation be really better if the reports were sent to gnome's BZ? I believe ABRT has the possibility to not send report for some application, would it make more sense to just stop sending these reports then? If no-one looks at them and all they do is clutter the BZ and give our user a sense of being neglected, is it really interested? Maybe we could list all the GNOME components and block all of which where ABRT is more deleterious than beneficial? Ideally, I guess we should revisit this list periodically to check with maintainers if they still wish to be on that list or if they wish to give ABRT a try again. Food for thoughts :) Pierre -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
Re: F24, small backward steps
- Original Message - > Could you elaborate a little on your reasoning/thoughts please? > > I am quite interesting to understand your point of view. > From where I stand, we are offering a way for someone to unlock someone's > else > computer without a password. > I understand the procedure isn't straight forward: > - Find unattended and unlocked laptop > - Enroll your fingerprint > - Gain access to the computer whenever you want > > I do realise that to do the second step you need access to the machine, which > is > pretty much the third step. > But enrolling your fingerprint is likely less noticeable by the owner of the > machine then, say, changing their password (which actually asks for the > current > password first), but will give you want you ask: permanent access to the > machine > (physically). Password prompts in GNOME do mention that the fingerprint reader is activated, so it's not so much opening a backdoor as opening the bay window next to the front door. > This is all nicely theoretical but it still seems like something that should > be > fixed, no? It keeps slipping by, and it's not super important, which is the reason why it keeps getting forgotten. I'll get to it next time I do maintenance on fprintd. Cheers -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
Re: F24, small backward steps
- Original Message - > > > - Original Message - > > I'm seeing 24 bugs at: > > https://apps.fedoraproject.org/packages/fprintd/bugs/all > > including a potential security one: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/1333882 > > Fedora's bugzilla is a garbage fire as far as I'm concerned. I already made > that abundantly clear I think. I said "garbage fire" when I meant "tire fire". It keeps on burning and I'm too lazy/busy to handle those bugs downstream when the majority of the work, triaging and discussions happen upstream. I should also note that the Red Hat bugzilla is far too coarse for handling split-up projects like gnome-control-center and gnome-settings-daemon, both of which are connected to multiple system layers (the kernel, systemd, a lot of specialised daemons, windowing systems, and their dependencies) and which have separate maintainers upstream. Apologies again for the vocabulary used. -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
Re: F24, small backward steps
For which one of the problems you listed? It would certainly have been interesting to list those in your original mail. - Original Message - > On 09/13/2016 11:09 AM, Daniel P. Berrange wrote: > > On Tue, Sep 13, 2016 at 10:00:32AM -0500, Michael Catanzaro wrote: > >> Hi, > >> > >> To be clear, the problem is that a small handful of package maintainers > >> (including Bastien) are collectively "responsible" for all of the GNOME > >> and freedesktop components in Fedora (including fprintd), and it's > >> simply not reasonable to expect them to read all the bugs that are > >> assigned to them, let alone take the time to forward them upstream. If > >> you use Red Hat Bugzilla, the right developers may never notice your > >> bug report at all. > >> > >> You have a much better chance filing bugs upstream. You should only use > >> Red Hat Bugzilla for these components if you happen to know there is a > >> specific maintainer who actually looks at the Red Hat bugs for that > >> specific component, or if you're planning to propose it as a release > >> blocker, or if you just don't care whether anybody sees your bug. If > >> you have a packaging bug then it's the right place, but please ping > >> someone to be sure it gets noticed. > >> > >> Of course this is not how Bugzilla is intended to work, but it is how > >> it actually works for GNOME stuff. It's unfortunate, but without some > >> Launchpad-style automatic bug forwarding, this is going to remain the > >> case indefinitely. > > > > This is a truly awful experiance from POV of a Fedora user filing bugs :-( > > We've set a silent trap for them with no warning of the fact that their > > bug reports are going to be ignored until Fedora EOL procedure closes > > them :-( > > > > Even if we can't enhance Red hat Bugzilla, we can at least do more to > > alert users to this so they stand a chance of doing the right thing. > > > > eg, update the component description to tell user to file in GNOME > > bugzilla instead, and have a bot that adds a comment to any new bugs > > that are still filed, closing them WONTFIX and asking the user to > > re-open against upstream GNOME bugzilla, instead of leaving the bug > > open and ignored until Fedora EOL. > > > > Regards, > > Daniel > > > Thanks for recognizing this. I am the OP. I pretty quickly got a > response suggesting that I file a bug report "upstream". I did that, or > so I thought, and immediately got a response from someone that it was > the wrong place or list followed by another declaring the matter closed. > I went back to my day job. > > > -- > Roger Wells, P.E. > leidos > 221 Third St > Newport, RI 02840 > 401-847-4210 (voice) > 401-849-1585 (fax) > roger.k.we...@leidos.com > -- > devel mailing list > devel@lists.fedoraproject.org > https://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org > -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
Re: F24, small backward steps
- Original Message - > Hi, > > To be clear, the problem is that a small handful of package maintainers > (including Bastien) are collectively "responsible" for all of the GNOME > and freedesktop components in Fedora (including fprintd), and it's > simply not reasonable to expect them to read all the bugs that are > assigned to them, let alone take the time to forward them upstream. If > you use Red Hat Bugzilla, the right developers may never notice your > bug report at all. > > You have a much better chance filing bugs upstream. You should only use > Red Hat Bugzilla for these components if you happen to know there is a > specific maintainer who actually looks at the Red Hat bugs for that > specific component, or if you're planning to propose it as a release > blocker, or if you just don't care whether anybody sees your bug. If > you have a packaging bug then it's the right place, but please ping > someone to be sure it gets noticed. > > Of course this is not how Bugzilla is intended to work, but it is how > it actually works for GNOME stuff. It's unfortunate, but without some > Launchpad-style automatic bug forwarding, this is going to remain the > case indefinitely. Couldn't have put it better, thanks. -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
Re: F24, small backward steps
On Tue, Sep 13, 2016 at 12:24:33PM -0400, Bastien Nocera wrote: > > > - Original Message - > > On Tue, Sep 13, 2016 at 07:30:07AM -0400, Bastien Nocera wrote: > > > > > > > > > - Original Message - > > > > I'm seeing 24 bugs at: > > > > https://apps.fedoraproject.org/packages/fprintd/bugs/all > > > > including a potential security one: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/1333882 > > > > > > Fedora's bugzilla is a garbage fire as far as I'm concerned. I already > > > made > > > that abundantly clear I think. > > > > Well, https://bugzilla.redhat.com/1333882 is a security bug, blocking: > > https://bugzilla.redhat.com/1305770 which mentions: > > `` > > Upstream bug: > > > > https://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=89407 > > `` > > > > and: > > `` > > This issue has been reported as far back as 2011: > > > > https://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=651196 > > `` > > > > So, you may not care about Red Hat bugzilla, but there is a security bug > > issued > > in there for more than 6 months and which is referencing a bug "upstreamed" > > for > > 5 years. > > Which I don't consider to be a security bug, hence the reason why I didn't > touch it. Could you elaborate a little on your reasoning/thoughts please? I am quite interesting to understand your point of view. From where I stand, we are offering a way for someone to unlock someone's else computer without a password. I understand the procedure isn't straight forward: - Find unattended and unlocked laptop - Enroll your fingerprint - Gain access to the computer whenever you want I do realise that to do the second step you need access to the machine, which is pretty much the third step. But enrolling your fingerprint is likely less noticeable by the owner of the machine then, say, changing their password (which actually asks for the current password first), but will give you want you ask: permanent access to the machine (physically). This is all nicely theoretical but it still seems like something that should be fixed, no? Thanks, Pierre -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
Re: F24, small backward steps
- Original Message - > This is a truly awful experiance from POV of a Fedora user filing bugs :-( > We've set a silent trap for them with no warning of the fact that their > bug reports are going to be ignored until Fedora EOL procedure closes > them :-( > > Even if we can't enhance Red hat Bugzilla, we can at least do more to > alert users to this so they stand a chance of doing the right thing. > > eg, update the component description to tell user to file in GNOME > bugzilla instead, and have a bot that adds a comment to any new bugs > that are still filed, closing them WONTFIX and asking the user to > re-open against upstream GNOME bugzilla, instead of leaving the bug > open and ignored until Fedora EOL. A couple of things could be done to help with that: - Bring back the x-bugzilla .desktop metadata, and have ABRT file upstream bugs - Make ABRT reports more useful (right now it's attaches a *lot* of extra information, basically everything it can, as files). It's not possible to search for parts of backtraces in the query tool. - More useful templates when filing bugs, explaining where to file RFEs and non-packaging bugs. As (for GNOME and a lot of other tools) we simply package upstream, it would be most better to point directly to the right place to file bugs. -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
Re: F24, small backward steps
- Original Message - > On Tue, Sep 13, 2016 at 07:30:07AM -0400, Bastien Nocera wrote: > > > > > > - Original Message - > > > I'm seeing 24 bugs at: > > > https://apps.fedoraproject.org/packages/fprintd/bugs/all > > > including a potential security one: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/1333882 > > > > Fedora's bugzilla is a garbage fire as far as I'm concerned. I already made > > that abundantly clear I think. > > Well, https://bugzilla.redhat.com/1333882 is a security bug, blocking: > https://bugzilla.redhat.com/1305770 which mentions: > `` > Upstream bug: > > https://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=89407 > `` > > and: > `` > This issue has been reported as far back as 2011: > > https://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=651196 > `` > > So, you may not care about Red Hat bugzilla, but there is a security bug > issued > in there for more than 6 months and which is referencing a bug "upstreamed" > for > 5 years. Which I don't consider to be a security bug, hence the reason why I didn't touch it. > To me it looks like there is something in your "garbage" that needs a little > attention. -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
Re: F24, small backward steps
On Tue, Sep 13, 2016 at 11:43 AM, Ralf Corsepiuswrote: > On 09/13/2016 05:09 PM, Daniel P. Berrange wrote: > >> This is a truly awful experiance from POV of a Fedora user filing bugs :-( >> We've set a silent trap for them with no warning of the fact that their >> bug reports are going to be ignored until Fedora EOL procedure closes >> them :-( > > > One lesson I have learnt in Fedora, is that filing bugs reports against > packages owned by certain people equals to sending bugs to /dev/null. > > IMHO, Fedora should consider to take disciplinary measures against these > people. > > Ralf > For what it's worth, there are a set of Package Maintainer Responsibilities[1] on the wiki. The section "Deal with reported bugs in a timely manner" does offer suggestions for what to do if you find yourself unable to handle bug reports, but there's no discussion of what to do when a package maintainer is not living up to these responsibilities. I agree that it would be good to try to outline an approach to address cases where a package maintainer is not honoring these responsibilities, would a FESCo ticket be the correct forum? Rich [1] https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Package_maintainer_responsibilities -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
Re: F24, small backward steps
On 09/13/2016 05:09 PM, Daniel P. Berrange wrote: This is a truly awful experiance from POV of a Fedora user filing bugs :-( We've set a silent trap for them with no warning of the fact that their bug reports are going to be ignored until Fedora EOL procedure closes them :-( One lesson I have learnt in Fedora, is that filing bugs reports against packages owned by certain people equals to sending bugs to /dev/null. IMHO, Fedora should consider to take disciplinary measures against these people. Ralf -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
Re: F24, small backward steps
On 09/13/2016 11:09 AM, Daniel P. Berrange wrote: > On Tue, Sep 13, 2016 at 10:00:32AM -0500, Michael Catanzaro wrote: >> Hi, >> >> To be clear, the problem is that a small handful of package maintainers >> (including Bastien) are collectively "responsible" for all of the GNOME >> and freedesktop components in Fedora (including fprintd), and it's >> simply not reasonable to expect them to read all the bugs that are >> assigned to them, let alone take the time to forward them upstream. If >> you use Red Hat Bugzilla, the right developers may never notice your >> bug report at all. >> >> You have a much better chance filing bugs upstream. You should only use >> Red Hat Bugzilla for these components if you happen to know there is a >> specific maintainer who actually looks at the Red Hat bugs for that >> specific component, or if you're planning to propose it as a release >> blocker, or if you just don't care whether anybody sees your bug. If >> you have a packaging bug then it's the right place, but please ping >> someone to be sure it gets noticed. >> >> Of course this is not how Bugzilla is intended to work, but it is how >> it actually works for GNOME stuff. It's unfortunate, but without some >> Launchpad-style automatic bug forwarding, this is going to remain the >> case indefinitely. > > This is a truly awful experiance from POV of a Fedora user filing bugs :-( > We've set a silent trap for them with no warning of the fact that their > bug reports are going to be ignored until Fedora EOL procedure closes > them :-( > > Even if we can't enhance Red hat Bugzilla, we can at least do more to > alert users to this so they stand a chance of doing the right thing. > > eg, update the component description to tell user to file in GNOME > bugzilla instead, and have a bot that adds a comment to any new bugs > that are still filed, closing them WONTFIX and asking the user to > re-open against upstream GNOME bugzilla, instead of leaving the bug > open and ignored until Fedora EOL. > > Regards, > Daniel > Thanks for recognizing this. I am the OP. I pretty quickly got a response suggesting that I file a bug report "upstream". I did that, or so I thought, and immediately got a response from someone that it was the wrong place or list followed by another declaring the matter closed. I went back to my day job. -- Roger Wells, P.E. leidos 221 Third St Newport, RI 02840 401-847-4210 (voice) 401-849-1585 (fax) roger.k.we...@leidos.com -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
Re: F24, small backward steps
On Tue, Sep 13, 2016 at 10:00:32AM -0500, Michael Catanzaro wrote: > Hi, > > To be clear, the problem is that a small handful of package maintainers > (including Bastien) are collectively "responsible" for all of the GNOME > and freedesktop components in Fedora (including fprintd), and it's > simply not reasonable to expect them to read all the bugs that are > assigned to them, let alone take the time to forward them upstream. If > you use Red Hat Bugzilla, the right developers may never notice your > bug report at all. > > You have a much better chance filing bugs upstream. You should only use > Red Hat Bugzilla for these components if you happen to know there is a > specific maintainer who actually looks at the Red Hat bugs for that > specific component, or if you're planning to propose it as a release > blocker, or if you just don't care whether anybody sees your bug. If > you have a packaging bug then it's the right place, but please ping > someone to be sure it gets noticed. > > Of course this is not how Bugzilla is intended to work, but it is how > it actually works for GNOME stuff. It's unfortunate, but without some > Launchpad-style automatic bug forwarding, this is going to remain the > case indefinitely. This is a truly awful experiance from POV of a Fedora user filing bugs :-( We've set a silent trap for them with no warning of the fact that their bug reports are going to be ignored until Fedora EOL procedure closes them :-( Even if we can't enhance Red hat Bugzilla, we can at least do more to alert users to this so they stand a chance of doing the right thing. eg, update the component description to tell user to file in GNOME bugzilla instead, and have a bot that adds a comment to any new bugs that are still filed, closing them WONTFIX and asking the user to re-open against upstream GNOME bugzilla, instead of leaving the bug open and ignored until Fedora EOL. Regards, Daniel -- |: http://berrange.com -o-http://www.flickr.com/photos/dberrange/ :| |: http://libvirt.org -o- http://virt-manager.org :| |: http://autobuild.org -o- http://search.cpan.org/~danberr/ :| |: http://entangle-photo.org -o- http://live.gnome.org/gtk-vnc :| -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
Re: F24, small backward steps
Hi, To be clear, the problem is that a small handful of package maintainers (including Bastien) are collectively "responsible" for all of the GNOME and freedesktop components in Fedora (including fprintd), and it's simply not reasonable to expect them to read all the bugs that are assigned to them, let alone take the time to forward them upstream. If you use Red Hat Bugzilla, the right developers may never notice your bug report at all. You have a much better chance filing bugs upstream. You should only use Red Hat Bugzilla for these components if you happen to know there is a specific maintainer who actually looks at the Red Hat bugs for that specific component, or if you're planning to propose it as a release blocker, or if you just don't care whether anybody sees your bug. If you have a packaging bug then it's the right place, but please ping someone to be sure it gets noticed. Of course this is not how Bugzilla is intended to work, but it is how it actually works for GNOME stuff. It's unfortunate, but without some Launchpad-style automatic bug forwarding, this is going to remain the case indefinitely. Michael -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
Re: F24, small backward steps
On Tue, Sep 13, 2016 at 07:30:07AM -0400, Bastien Nocera wrote: > > > - Original Message - > > I'm seeing 24 bugs at: > > https://apps.fedoraproject.org/packages/fprintd/bugs/all > > including a potential security one: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/1333882 > > Fedora's bugzilla is a garbage fire as far as I'm concerned. I already made > that abundantly clear I think. Well, https://bugzilla.redhat.com/1333882 is a security bug, blocking: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/1305770 which mentions: `` Upstream bug: https://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=89407 `` and: `` This issue has been reported as far back as 2011: https://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=651196 `` So, you may not care about Red Hat bugzilla, but there is a security bug issued in there for more than 6 months and which is referencing a bug "upstreamed" for 5 years. To me it looks like there is something in your "garbage" that needs a little attention. Pierre -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
Re: F24, small backward steps
- Original Message - > I'm seeing 24 bugs at: > https://apps.fedoraproject.org/packages/fprintd/bugs/all > including a potential security one: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/1333882 Fedora's bugzilla is a garbage fire as far as I'm concerned. I already made that abundantly clear I think. > so I'm not sure what you call 'upstream bugs' but there are bugs reported > against fprintd. By upstream, I mean upstream. That's https://bugs.freedesktop.org for fprintd. -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
Re: F24, small backward steps
On Tue, Sep 13, 2016 at 07:05:32AM -0400, Bastien Nocera wrote: > > > - Original Message - > > > > > > Dne 9.9.2016 v 21:53 Roger Wells napsal(a): > > > Just a couple of smallish things after upgrading (via dnf) from F23 to > > > F24 a couple of months ago: > > > > > > > > > 2. fingerprint identification: > > > > > > The laptop has a fingerprint reader and it works fine. However > > > I prefer not to use it. The user set up specifies that fingerprint login > > > is disabled. > > > > > > However whenever I am asked for a password the fingerprint > > > reader blinks until I swipe a finger over it (even after using a > > > password). > > > > > > No fingerprint is registered. > > > > > > This is different than F23 where it never blinked. > > > > > > > > > > > > If I am not mistaken "dnf remove fprintd-pam" should completely disable > > the fingerprint reader, although you might observe some error messages > > in your journal later. > > > > But don't worry, the fprind daemon is broken for ages and nobody cares, > > so it might work once, but then it crashes ... > > There's no upstream bugs against fprintd specifically, so, like, you're wrong? I'm seeing 24 bugs at: https://apps.fedoraproject.org/packages/fprintd/bugs/all including a potential security one: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/1333882 so I'm not sure what you call 'upstream bugs' but there are bugs reported against fprintd. Pierre -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
Re: F24, small backward steps
- Original Message - > > > Dne 9.9.2016 v 21:53 Roger Wells napsal(a): > > Just a couple of smallish things after upgrading (via dnf) from F23 to > > F24 a couple of months ago: > > > > > > 2. fingerprint identification: > > > > The laptop has a fingerprint reader and it works fine. However > > I prefer not to use it. The user set up specifies that fingerprint login > > is disabled. > > > > However whenever I am asked for a password the fingerprint > > reader blinks until I swipe a finger over it (even after using a > > password). > > > > No fingerprint is registered. > > > > This is different than F23 where it never blinked. > > > > > > > If I am not mistaken "dnf remove fprintd-pam" should completely disable > the fingerprint reader, although you might observe some error messages > in your journal later. > > But don't worry, the fprind daemon is broken for ages and nobody cares, > so it might work once, but then it crashes ... There's no upstream bugs against fprintd specifically, so, like, you're wrong? -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
Re: F24, small backward steps
Dne 9.9.2016 v 21:53 Roger Wells napsal(a): > Just a couple of smallish things after upgrading (via dnf) from F23 to > F24 a couple of months ago: > > > 2. fingerprint identification: > > The laptop has a fingerprint reader and it works fine. However > I prefer not to use it. The user set up specifies that fingerprint login > is disabled. > > However whenever I am asked for a password the fingerprint > reader blinks until I swipe a finger over it (even after using a > password). > > No fingerprint is registered. > > This is different than F23 where it never blinked. > > If I am not mistaken "dnf remove fprintd-pam" should completely disable the fingerprint reader, although you might observe some error messages in your journal later. But don't worry, the fprind daemon is broken for ages and nobody cares, so it might work once, but then it crashes ... Vít -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
Re: F24, small backward steps
On Fri, 2016-09-09 at 17:45 -0400, Roger Wells wrote: > > Let me know if you think I should submit this upstream somewhere. Probably to gnome-shell on bugzilla.gnome.org , I guess. -- Adam Williamson Fedora QA Community Monkey IRC: adamw | Twitter: AdamW_Fedora | XMPP: adamw AT happyassassin . net http://www.happyassassin.net -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
Re: F24, small backward steps
On 09/09/2016 04:44 PM, Adam Williamson wrote: > On Fri, 2016-09-09 at 15:53 -0400, Roger Wells wrote: >> Just a couple of smallish things after upgrading (via dnf) from F23 to >> F24 a couple of months ago: >> >> 1. deja-dup gui: >> >> one has to deselect then reselect the Overview option in order >> to be offered the "Backup Now" option. >> >> The details option in the progress dialog will only display two >> or three lines, is not resizeable, and does not follow resizing the >> entire dialog >> >> The progress dialog does not wait to be dismissed at the end, >> causing any messages about problems (like failure to backup a particular >> file) to not be seen > > This really isn't anything particular to Fedora. deja-dup is just an > app we ship. The appropriate place to report issues with it is to its > upstream bug tracker. Just did that. > >> 2. fingerprint identification: >> >> The laptop has a fingerprint reader and it works fine. However >> I prefer not to use it. The user set up specifies that fingerprint login >> is disabled. >> >> However whenever I am asked for a password the fingerprint >> reader blinks until I swipe a finger over it (even after using a >> password). >> >> No fingerprint is registered. >> >> This is different than F23 where it never blinked. > > This you should probably file a bug on (against, I guess, gnome-shell? > But it depends a lot on the answer to my second question below...), but > with a bit more detail. What exactly do you mean by "The user set up > specifies that fingerprint login is disabled" - what "user set up" are > you referring to exactly? When exactly does this happen - more detail > on "whenever I am asked for a password". Thanks! 1. Press the button on the upper right corner of the Gnome desktop. 2. Press the settings button on the lower left of the menu 3. Select Users On the resulting "Users" dialog one can select Fingerprint Login: Disabled/Enabled In my case it is Disabled As far as when this occurs, at least: 1. at boot up login 2. after suspense login and not 1. not when a browser asks for a password when visiting a site 2. when issuing a command using sudo, like mounting an external share Once again, this did not occur on F23 and started as soon as I upgraded to F24 Its no big deal. We could do like windows 10 which just stops the fingerprint reader when a password is entered. Let me know if you think I should submit this upstream somewhere. It feels like it may be similar to the scrolling problems mentioned that seem be fixed after installing libinit and adjusting some configuration files in /etc. After doing that the Gnome "Mouse & Touchpad" settings dialog (same place as the "Users" mentioned above) took on a whole new meaningful life. HTH, thanks for your response > -- Roger Wells, P.E. leidos 221 Third St Newport, RI 02840 401-847-4210 (voice) 401-849-1585 (fax) roger.k.we...@leidos.com -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
Re: F24, small backward steps
On Fri, 9 Sep 2016, Adam Williamson wrote: 2. fingerprint identification: The laptop has a fingerprint reader and it works fine. However I prefer not to use it. The user set up specifies that fingerprint login is disabled. However whenever I am asked for a password the fingerprint reader blinks until I swipe a finger over it (even after using a password). No fingerprint is registered. This is different than F23 where it never blinked. This you should probably file a bug on (against, I guess, gnome-shell? But it depends a lot on the answer to my second question below...), but with a bit more detail. What exactly do you mean by "The user set up specifies that fingerprint login is disabled" - what "user set up" are you referring to exactly? When exactly does this happen - more detail on "whenever I am asked for a password". Thanks! This happened to me too. I did not enable fingerprint based logins (since half a dozen governments have my fingerprints) and whenever I open my laptop or unlock the screensaver using a password, the green fingerprint LED starts blinking. This did not happen on f23. Paul -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
Re: F24, small backward steps
On Fri, 2016-09-09 at 15:53 -0400, Roger Wells wrote: > Just a couple of smallish things after upgrading (via dnf) from F23 to > F24 a couple of months ago: > > 1. deja-dup gui: > > one has to deselect then reselect the Overview option in order > to be offered the "Backup Now" option. > > The details option in the progress dialog will only display two > or three lines, is not resizeable, and does not follow resizing the > entire dialog > > The progress dialog does not wait to be dismissed at the end, > causing any messages about problems (like failure to backup a particular > file) to not be seen This really isn't anything particular to Fedora. deja-dup is just an app we ship. The appropriate place to report issues with it is to its upstream bug tracker. > 2. fingerprint identification: > > The laptop has a fingerprint reader and it works fine. However > I prefer not to use it. The user set up specifies that fingerprint login > is disabled. > > However whenever I am asked for a password the fingerprint > reader blinks until I swipe a finger over it (even after using a > password). > > No fingerprint is registered. > > This is different than F23 where it never blinked. This you should probably file a bug on (against, I guess, gnome-shell? But it depends a lot on the answer to my second question below...), but with a bit more detail. What exactly do you mean by "The user set up specifies that fingerprint login is disabled" - what "user set up" are you referring to exactly? When exactly does this happen - more detail on "whenever I am asked for a password". Thanks! -- Adam Williamson Fedora QA Community Monkey IRC: adamw | Twitter: AdamW_Fedora | XMPP: adamw AT happyassassin . net http://www.happyassassin.net -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
F24, small backward steps
Just a couple of smallish things after upgrading (via dnf) from F23 to F24 a couple of months ago: 1. deja-dup gui: one has to deselect then reselect the Overview option in order to be offered the "Backup Now" option. The details option in the progress dialog will only display two or three lines, is not resizeable, and does not follow resizing the entire dialog The progress dialog does not wait to be dismissed at the end, causing any messages about problems (like failure to backup a particular file) to not be seen 2. fingerprint identification: The laptop has a fingerprint reader and it works fine. However I prefer not to use it. The user set up specifies that fingerprint login is disabled. However whenever I am asked for a password the fingerprint reader blinks until I swipe a finger over it (even after using a password). No fingerprint is registered. This is different than F23 where it never blinked. 3. Scrolling issues: This, edge and natural scrolling via the touchpad, was covered nicely in a previous thread. Solutions offered there work well but should be better integrated as I am sure they will be. Desktop is: gnome-desktop3-3.20.2-1.fc24.x86_64 laptop is Thinkpad X240 (Intel graphics) Not to be a pita, just trying to help I really like Fedora & the Gnome desktop -- Roger Wells, P.E. leidos 221 Third St Newport, RI 02840 401-847-4210 (voice) 401-849-1585 (fax) roger.k.we...@leidos.com -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org