Re: do not remove arpack package from Fedora
Felix Schwarz writes: > > - package testing >Manually checking updates-testing is too tedious and usually I don't want >to install everything in updates-testing right away. But there are some >packages which I like to get as fast as possible/which I can test easily. > >- So I would like to get some kind of "notification" when such a package > goes into updates-testing + a reminder to give feedback. >- As an extension we could ask users who use certain applications regularly > if they want to try an update + ask them for bodhi karma after >1-2 days. This would be a nice feature! I certainly would like to help out testing packages, but unless the maintainer pings me directly and asks me to help, I will not notice an update being pushed to testing. Cheers, Dan signature.asc Description: PGP signature ___ devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
Re: do not remove arpack package from Fedora
On Sat, Nov 30, 2019 at 01:42:04AM +0100, Kevin Kofler wrote: > Fabio Valentini wrote: > > I'm not really sure what you want to say here. There's a pretty strict > > policy about what changes provenpackagers are "allowed" to make to > > "foreign" packages, and it doesn't include pushing minor improvements. > > Well, in practice, a provenpackager can usually get away with just pushing > stuff as long as nobody complains, and in particular with just pushing > pretty much anything to effectively unmaintained packages. :-) And I don't > really see a problem with that. As long as you are not making anybody Well, the main problem is that then they don't really see any of the consequences of their actions, at least from users. ie, provenpackager pushes to unmaintained package, users file bugs, but since no one is watching those, nothing happens. Of course even if the package is maintained there's not any promise, but at least a maintainer should see what happened... kevin signature.asc Description: PGP signature ___ devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
Re: do not remove arpack package from Fedora
On November 30, 2019 11:46:46 AM GMT+01:00, Felix Schwarz wrote: > >Am 30.11.19 um 07:27 schrieb Chris Adams: >> I think the problem is that unmaintained packages are still >> unmaintained; drive-by changes by provenpackagers are not actual >> maintenance, because that's not a scalable organization (expecting >> provenpackagers to do all maintenance on random packages). > >I agree. One thing that is missing in Fedora is a process to involve >users in >the actual distribution maintenance (and I think this is mostly a >technical/ >tooling problem not a social one). > >For example: >- orphaned packages > - When a package gets orphaned, I think a bot should post a comment to >existing bugzilla issues which explains the situation and asks the >users >to step up (this "call to action" process should come with detailed >step-by-step instructions on how to take care of that orphaned >package). > >- When I have an orphaned package installed I'd like to get a >notification >(desktop/server) so I am aware that this package may not receive >security >updates any longer. (And again "call to action" for regular users to >step > up.) > >- package testing >Manually checking updates-testing is too tedious and usually I don't >want >to install everything in updates-testing right away. But there are some >packages which I like to get as fast as possible/which I can test >easily. > >- So I would like to get some kind of "notification" when such a >package > goes into updates-testing + a reminder to give feedback. >- As an extension we could ask users who use certain applications >regularly >if they want to try an update + ask them for bodhi karma after 1-2 >days. > >- Flag "co-maintainers wanted". As a packager I'd like to mark some >packages >where I'd like see more co-maintainers (e.g. for libraries I maintain >only >because another app uses them). Packagers for dependent projects should >be > be notified that this library is in need of further maintainers. > >But of course all of that requires coding and "someone" to do it :-/ The notification part would need more work, but pagure supports tagging projects and leveraging src.fp.o's theme to list them on the homepage and add a banner on package's view would be actually pretty easy. We could need some modifications for project tagging process though > >Anyway: lowering the bar to contribute to Fedora + integrating with >Fedora >users is something the Fedora project needs to do. > >Felix >___ >devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org >To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org >Fedora Code of Conduct: >https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ >List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines >List Archives: >https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org Julen Landa Alustiza ___ devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
Re: do not remove arpack package from Fedora
Am 30.11.19 um 07:27 schrieb Chris Adams: > I think the problem is that unmaintained packages are still > unmaintained; drive-by changes by provenpackagers are not actual > maintenance, because that's not a scalable organization (expecting > provenpackagers to do all maintenance on random packages). I agree. One thing that is missing in Fedora is a process to involve users in the actual distribution maintenance (and I think this is mostly a technical/ tooling problem not a social one). For example: - orphaned packages - When a package gets orphaned, I think a bot should post a comment to existing bugzilla issues which explains the situation and asks the users to step up (this "call to action" process should come with detailed step-by-step instructions on how to take care of that orphaned package). - When I have an orphaned package installed I'd like to get a notification (desktop/server) so I am aware that this package may not receive security updates any longer. (And again "call to action" for regular users to step up.) - package testing Manually checking updates-testing is too tedious and usually I don't want to install everything in updates-testing right away. But there are some packages which I like to get as fast as possible/which I can test easily. - So I would like to get some kind of "notification" when such a package goes into updates-testing + a reminder to give feedback. - As an extension we could ask users who use certain applications regularly if they want to try an update + ask them for bodhi karma after 1-2 days. - Flag "co-maintainers wanted". As a packager I'd like to mark some packages where I'd like see more co-maintainers (e.g. for libraries I maintain only because another app uses them). Packagers for dependent projects should be be notified that this library is in need of further maintainers. But of course all of that requires coding and "someone" to do it :-/ Anyway: lowering the bar to contribute to Fedora + integrating with Fedora users is something the Fedora project needs to do. Felix ___ devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
Re: do not remove arpack package from Fedora
Am 30.11.19 um 01:42 schrieb Kevin Kofler: > Fabio Valentini wrote: >> I'm not really sure what you want to say here. There's a pretty strict >> policy about what changes provenpackagers are "allowed" to make to >> "foreign" packages, and it doesn't include pushing minor improvements. > > Well, in practice, a provenpackager can usually get away with just pushing > stuff as long as nobody complains, and in particular with just pushing > pretty much anything to effectively unmaintained packages. :-) That was exactly what I observed sometimes in the past (and in fact I'm glad these packagers did it). Felix ___ devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
Re: do not remove arpack package from Fedora
Once upon a time, Kevin Kofler said: > Well, in practice, a provenpackager can usually get away with just pushing > stuff as long as nobody complains, and in particular with just pushing > pretty much anything to effectively unmaintained packages. :-) And I don't > really see a problem with that. I think the problem is that unmaintained packages are still unmaintained; drive-by changes by provenpackagers are not actual maintenance, because that's not a scalable organization (expecting provenpackagers to do all maintenance on random packages). It's awesome that people are will to be provenpackagers and try to do that, but IMHO it's not a system that's destined to succeed. In the long term, it's probably better for unmaintained packages to be removed and to focus on actively maintained packages. Occasional provenpackager changes are fine; if that's all a package gets, that's not good. -- Chris Adams ___ devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
Re: do not remove arpack package from Fedora
Fabio Valentini wrote: > I'm not really sure what you want to say here. There's a pretty strict > policy about what changes provenpackagers are "allowed" to make to > "foreign" packages, and it doesn't include pushing minor improvements. Well, in practice, a provenpackager can usually get away with just pushing stuff as long as nobody complains, and in particular with just pushing pretty much anything to effectively unmaintained packages. :-) And I don't really see a problem with that. As long as you are not making anybody unhappy, why would it not be OK to just push your changes? (That said, if you are going to commit random stuff to actively maintained packages without asking, you WILL get complaints, and rightfully so. I tend to get annoyed even by some of the mass changes that are actually covered by the policies.) Kevin Kofler ___ devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
Re: do not remove arpack package from Fedora
Le 2019-11-29 11:39, Felix Schwarz a écrit : Am 29.11.19 um 11:18 schrieb Miro Hrončok: My effort is to raise the awareness about he failure. Despite my large effort, I cannot possibly fix all the build failures in Fedora. I just wanted to mention that I appreciate your efforts. I think the "fallout" from retired packages may be a symptom I noticed in the past months: It seems as if a lot of Fedora maintainers are actually not participating anymore. With the FTBFS/retirement policy this is just easier to see. Speaking as a long-term contributor it’s quite hard to find the motivation to continue contributing, when the external communication of the project has been taken over by people keen to push flatpacks, and pretend the work I already did rpm-side has so little value it can be easily replaced. And the internal communication of the project has been taken over by module grand plans, which are the same, replacing flatpacks with modules. Sometimes, it is very tempting to say “to hell with all that, if all those people are so focused on NiH and taking over, and willing to rebuild everything from scratch in their own pet incompatible tech, let them do it and find their own contributors. We’ll see if they still dismiss concerns of current contributors when *they* have to do the work.” Regards, -- Nicolas Mailhot ___ devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
Re: do not remove arpack package from Fedora
On Fri, Nov 29, 2019 at 11:40 AM Felix Schwarz wrote: Hi Felix! > Am 29.11.19 um 11:18 schrieb Miro Hrončok: > > My effort is to raise the awareness about he failure. Despite my large > > effort, > > I cannot possibly fix all the build failures in Fedora. > > I just wanted to mention that I appreciate your efforts. > > I think the "fallout" from retired packages may be a symptom I noticed in the > past months: It seems as if a lot of Fedora maintainers are actually not > participating anymore. With the FTBFS/retirement policy this is just easier to > see. > > > I had a lot of problems getting *any* response from several packagers even > when sending a complete pull request which adds just some simple stuff (e.g. > GPG source file verification). This was just simple packaging stuff not > something which might require actual coding skills. > Getting useful packages being added to EPEL8 has been a very frustrating so > far. > > > However I should mention that some packagers were being very helpful. > > One thing which I think is holding Fedora back is the complicated process of > getting commit access to some packages. If the maintainer is not responding > the only thing you could do is to file a non-responsive maintainer ticket. I agree, this is a problem that doesn't have a good solution. But the non-responsive maintanier process has been streamlined quite a bit recently, so it's not as bad as it was. > (And how long should I wait before doing this? If I file a ticket and wait 3-4 > weeks before starting the process, usually I already built a workaround so I > don't care anymore about the Fedora package.) If it's obvious that the packager isn't active in fedora anymore, there's no reason to wait for a month. The policy states to wait for one week, and that's exactly what I usually do, when going through the non-responsive maintainer process. > Each package is somehow its own "island" and sometimes I think the packaging > process only works for "provenpackagers" and people in the stewardship-sig. I'm not really sure what you want to say here. There's a pretty strict policy about what changes provenpackagers are "allowed" to make to "foreign" packages, and it doesn't include pushing minor improvements. Also, while there is some overlap between provenpackagers and the Stewardship SIG (I think Miro, Gwyn, Neal, and me), we only maintain our group's packages, and for everything else we go through the same channels as you (proposing PRs, sending emails to maintainers, opening non-responsive maintainer tickets). Fabio > Felix > ___ > devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org > To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org > Fedora Code of Conduct: > https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ > List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines > List Archives: > https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org ___ devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
Re: do not remove arpack package from Fedora
Am 29.11.19 um 11:18 schrieb Miro Hrončok: > My effort is to raise the awareness about he failure. Despite my large effort, > I cannot possibly fix all the build failures in Fedora. I just wanted to mention that I appreciate your efforts. I think the "fallout" from retired packages may be a symptom I noticed in the past months: It seems as if a lot of Fedora maintainers are actually not participating anymore. With the FTBFS/retirement policy this is just easier to see. I had a lot of problems getting *any* response from several packagers even when sending a complete pull request which adds just some simple stuff (e.g. GPG source file verification). This was just simple packaging stuff not something which might require actual coding skills. Getting useful packages being added to EPEL8 has been a very frustrating so far. However I should mention that some packagers were being very helpful. One thing which I think is holding Fedora back is the complicated process of getting commit access to some packages. If the maintainer is not responding the only thing you could do is to file a non-responsive maintainer ticket. (And how long should I wait before doing this? If I file a ticket and wait 3-4 weeks before starting the process, usually I already built a workaround so I don't care anymore about the Fedora package.) Each package is somehow its own "island" and sometimes I think the packaging process only works for "provenpackagers" and people in the stewardship-sig. Felix ___ devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
Re: do not remove arpack package from Fedora
On 29. 11. 19 2:53, Conrad Sand wrote: Hi Miro, Please _do not_ remove arpack and arpack-devel. Sure, please rebuilt it. Orion has started to work on it in https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/arpack/pull-request/1 A lot of other packages depend on that. At least 49 according to the report, yes. That's why I have sent it out, so the dependent package maintainers have a chance to fix it. Removing arpack doesn't make any sense. Removing packages that haven't been built for certain number of releases is a Fedora policy described in: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/fesco/Fails_to_build_from_source_Fails_to_install/ It is not my personal quirk. If you don't agree with the policy itself, I suggest you start having a serious discussion about the policy on devel mailing list (CCed). Last time I tried to discuss the policy on the list in this thread: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org/thread/NKFYAWL4GWYR37C6XA63JMNBZYEM6BI3/ My intent was to make the policy less strict and give packagers some room. If the intent was not accomplished enough, I am still open to hear more suggestions. If you don't disagree with the policy but thing that it should not apply to arpack, please, discuss that to. Simply saying "removing arpack doesn't make any sense" without providing all the necessary context is not helpful. If you remove arpack, you might as well remove all serious scientific software from Fedora. I don't understand this statement. If we remove arpack we might as well remove the 49 packages. That hardly all serious scientific software in Fedora. I realize that there are some high impact packages. That's why we should together strive to fix the build failure and avoid disruption. Rather than providing the sole reason for the removal as "fail to build from source", shouldn't the first effort be towards fixing the affected package? You break it, you fix it, no? My effort is to raise the awareness about he failure. Despite my large effort, I cannot possibly fix all the build failures in Fedora. If I broke arpack, I am terribly sorry, but I am not aware of that. The failure is tracked in https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1734942 Yet there was no movement until this e-mail. In a way, the e-mail helped. Throwing out arpack is an absolute overkill, and to be perfectly honest, a boneheaded and extremely shortsighted proposal. My intentions are to raise the awareness of the issue. Throwing anything away will only happen to packages where nobody cares about them. Clearly, you care about arpack and that is appreciated. There are 2+ months now to do one of the following: - make it build - change the policy - exempt arpack from the policy I can help with the second two, if there are good reasons given and rest of the contributors agree. Orion is helping with the first. -- Miro Hrončok -- Phone: +420777974800 IRC: mhroncok ___ devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
