Re: potentially unmaintained packages
On Wed, Apr 14, 2010 at 08:38:52PM +0200, Michael Schwendt wrote: seriously? I don't think I ever said the list was all inclusive. And in my original reply I only asked some questions related to packages being considered potentially unmaintained. Is there a secret definition of potentially which I am unaware of and which is causing grief here? -- Matthew Miller mat...@mattdm.org Senior Systems Architect -- Instructional Research Computing Services Harvard School of Engineering Applied Sciences -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: potentially unmaintained packages
Hi Michael, On 14.04.2010 09:19, Michael Schwendt wrote: Why would it need to be rebuilt manually? You don't need to. If a package is working perfectly fine and no update is available there's no need to rebuild. Hey, this pkg hasn't been built, even in rawhide, in a while, maybe you should 1. check that out and 2. if the pkg is dead or unmaintained consider retiring it. It's stable, works, and is still being used by dependencies. Would I rebuild just for fun (and possibly introduce bugs related to temporary issues with compilation, RPM, or other build deps)? Again, there really is no need to. And Seth didn't say that there is a need to do so. I think he really tried hard to make his point of the list not having any implications. For my part I found this list quite useful because I almost forgot that I took over rubyripper some time ago. I had some issues with it lately and I almost filed a bug for it. I can just imagine the hilarity if that bug would have been assigned to myself directly ;) So just see this list as a service that you _can_ use. But you aren't required to use this service. Thanks Seth. Felix -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: potentially unmaintained packages
On Wed, 14 Apr 2010 12:20:05 +0200, Felix wrote: Hey, this pkg hasn't been built, even in rawhide, in a while, maybe you should 1. check that out and 2. if the pkg is dead or unmaintained consider retiring it. It's stable, works, and is still being used by dependencies. Would I rebuild just for fun (and possibly introduce bugs related to temporary issues with compilation, RPM, or other build deps)? Again, there really is no need to. And Seth didn't say that there is a need to do so. I think he really tried hard to make his point of the list not having any implications. Too many words in his message, too many sentences that imply something. The last sentence of the message would have been enough, IMO. For my part I found this list quite useful because I almost forgot that I took over rubyripper some time ago. Then you might find the following web interface helpful: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/users/packages/heffer I had some issues with it lately and I almost filed a bug for it. I can just imagine the hilarity if that bug would have been assigned to myself directly ;) So just see this list as a service that you _can_ use. But you aren't required to use this service. Sure it's useful somehow. I didn't mean to say it wouldn't be useful. All the extra comments in the message just made me wonder. Thanks Seth. Felix The list doesn't cover packages that have been (re)built, but suffer from many issues as covered by ageing bugzilla tickets which have not been commented on by the package maintainer. -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: potentially unmaintained packages
On Wed, 14 Apr 2010, Michael Schwendt wrote: On Tue, 13 Apr 2010 17:03:55 -0400 (EDT), Seth wrote: Hi, I worked on a script back in January which produced a list of packages that needed to be looked at. The reason was that the pkg had not been built by koji into dist-rawhide by a non-automated process in more than 6 months. Why would it need to be rebuilt manually? I never said it would. I just said it hadn't been rebuilt by a non-automated process. It's stable, works, and is still being used by dependencies. Would I rebuild just for fun (and possibly introduce bugs related to temporary issues with compilation, RPM, or other build deps)? I never said you had to rebuild it. I think I tried very hard to make it clear that this list was just to give folks a heads up. -sv -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: potentially unmaintained packages
On 04/14/2010 05:20 AM, Felix Kaechele wrote: Hi Michael, On 14.04.2010 09:19, Michael Schwendt wrote: Why would it need to be rebuilt manually? You don't need to. If a package is working perfectly fine and no update is available there's no need to rebuild. Hey, this pkg hasn't been built, even in rawhide, in a while, maybe you should 1. check that out and 2. if the pkg is dead or unmaintained consider retiring it. It's stable, works, and is still being used by dependencies. Would I rebuild just for fun (and possibly introduce bugs related to temporary issues with compilation, RPM, or other build deps)? Again, there really is no need to. And Seth didn't say that there is a need to do so. I think he really tried hard to make his point of the list not having any implications. For my part I found this list quite useful because I almost forgot that I took over rubyripper some time ago. I had some issues with it lately and I almost filed a bug for it. I can just imagine the hilarity if that bug would have been assigned to myself directly ;) So just see this list as a service that you _can_ use. But you aren't required to use this service. I agree, and thought Seth made his point well. I typically consider the set of things in Fedora I need to worry about to be the set of bugs assigned to me, plus the ones I've files, plus any FTFFS or broken deps I'm aware of. If something sits there for years, no bugs, no need for rebuild, and no new releases, and it works, then I'm happy. Very happy in fact. As an added bonus, I took some amusement from the sheer size of my part of his list. -J Thanks Seth. Felix -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: potentially unmaintained packages
On Tue, Apr 13, 2010 at 05:03:55PM -0400, Seth Vidal wrote: Hi, Hey, this pkg hasn't been built, even in rawhide, in a while, maybe you should 1. check that out and 2. if the pkg is dead or unmaintained consider retiring it. The junction with bug information is also interesting. I think that also having theinformation about new releases would be quite interesting, for packages that use the automatic new updates notification system. -- Pat -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: potentially unmaintained packages
On Wed, Apr 14, 2010 at 09:38:03AM +0200, Christoph Wickert wrote: Am Dienstag, den 13.04.2010, 17:03 -0400 schrieb Seth Vidal: http://skvidal.fedorapeople.org/misc/potentially-unmaintained/2010-04-13/ I see packages_by_user, pkgs_with_bugs and everything. What I would like to see is pkgs_with_bugs_by_user, because this is something that should really considered harmful. If a package has no bugs, I don't think it needs a new build. Reading this made me think that this would be a great thing to expose continuously, for instance on this packagedb page: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/users/packages/toshio Querying bugzilla is a comparatively expensive process so it's probably something we need to do by syncing the count of bugs into the db via a cron job. Any takers? -Toshio pgpWDyRcHOOYG.pgp Description: PGP signature -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: potentially unmaintained packages
TK == Toshio Kuratomi a.bad...@gmail.com writes: TK Querying bugzilla is a comparatively expensive process so it's TK probably something we need to do by syncing the count of bugs into TK the db via a cron job. Any takers? I could probably whip something up. - J -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: potentially unmaintained packages
On Wed, Apr 14, 2010 at 6:09 AM, Jon Ciesla l...@jcomserv.net wrote: I agree, and thought Seth made his point well. I typically consider the set of things in Fedora I need to worry about to be the set of bugs assigned to me, plus the ones I've files, plus any FTFFS or broken deps I'm aware of. If something sits there for years, no bugs, no need for rebuild, and no new releases, and it works, then I'm happy. Very happy in fact. I'm not actually sure that the packages on that list that I am responsible for actually do work.. nor do I have any evidence that anyone uses these packages on such a regular basis that they would be tested in the run up to a release. Hell man, matplotlib was runtime broken for over a month and it wasn't until Beta that someone actually filed a ticket about it (after I discovered the problem myself) and I expect matplotlib more widely used than something like g3data. Unless I start getting some affirmative feedback through some sort of phone home process, similar to popcon, that my packages are actually installed and used I have to assume that noone is using them on a regular basis and noone is testing prior to release. So in that sense Seth's list is a reminder to me to test those packages for myself on the Beta (now that I have a Beta install up and running...even though there was an intel graphics problem during install...but that's another story) -jefI have a very very long rant que'd up about falling back from a graphical install to a text install that is so minimal that it doesnt even include lspci. I've no problem with a text based install that is very minimal for people who deliberately choose to use it... but I have a really big problem failing over to it from a graphical install and expecting people who don't know what they are doing to know wtf is going on after they reboot the systemspaleta -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: potentially unmaintained packages
On Wed, 2010-04-14 at 09:19 +0200, Michael Schwendt wrote: On Tue, 13 Apr 2010 17:03:55 -0400 (EDT), Seth wrote: Hi, I worked on a script back in January which produced a list of packages that needed to be looked at. The reason was that the pkg had not been built by koji into dist-rawhide by a non-automated process in more than 6 months. Why would it need to be rebuilt manually? This list is NOT to shame or embarass anyone. It is only to say: Hey, this pkg hasn't been built, even in rawhide, in a while, maybe you should 1. check that out and 2. if the pkg is dead or unmaintained consider retiring it. It's stable, works, and is still being used by dependencies. Would I rebuild just for fun (and possibly introduce bugs related to temporary issues with compilation, RPM, or other build deps)? It seems to me that Seth quite carefully wrote his email specifically to forestall replies of this kind. Apparently it wasn't enough... It seems quite clear to me that this is just an advisory email about *possibly* unmaintained packages. If in fact it's not been rebuilt simply because it doesn't need to be, exactly as the email says, that's perfectly fine and there's nothing wrong with that. Just ignore it. -- Adam Williamson Fedora QA Community Monkey IRC: adamw | Fedora Talk: adamwill AT fedoraproject DOT org http://www.happyassassin.net -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: potentially unmaintained packages
On Wed, 14 Apr 2010 11:01:01 -0700, Adam wrote: It seems to me that Seth quite carefully wrote his email specifically to forestall replies of this kind. Apparently it wasn't enough... Of course not. The subject says potentially unmaintained packages. The message makes a fuss about it, even mentions scenarios like retiring packages. What it doesn't comment on is that despite missing rebuilds, a package may still be maintained both in Fedora and upstream. It doesn't mention other potentially unmaintained packages which are missing on the list because they have seen rebuilds (even if just for spec modifications), but which are dead upstream and unmaintained in Fedora. -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: potentially unmaintained packages
On Wed, 14 Apr 2010, Michael Schwendt wrote: On Wed, 14 Apr 2010 11:01:01 -0700, Adam wrote: It seems to me that Seth quite carefully wrote his email specifically to forestall replies of this kind. Apparently it wasn't enough... Of course not. The subject says potentially unmaintained packages. The message makes a fuss about it, even mentions scenarios like retiring packages. What it doesn't comment on is that despite missing rebuilds, a package may still be maintained both in Fedora and upstream. It doesn't mention other potentially unmaintained packages which are missing on the list because they have seen rebuilds (even if just for spec modifications), but which are dead upstream and unmaintained in Fedora. seriously? I don't think I ever said the list was all inclusive. -sv -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
