Re: rawhide/F17 broken dependencies: please stop spamming
On Tue, 21 Feb 2012 17:48:37 -0800, TK (Toshio) wrote: The orphan packages are more varied. Originally, there were packages that had been orphaned for many releases. I believe that now we're cleaning up all orphaned packages at each release branching so this may not be as much the case. There could still be packages that were orphaned for up to 6 months, missing out on all of a new releases pre-alpha period of development. Not sure that this is that much of a concern, though. And nevertheless, this thread is also about an orphan within F-17: # yum install insight [...] -- Finished Dependency Resolution Error: Package: insight-6.8.1-5.fc17.x86_64 (fedora) Requires: iwidgets The missing requirement had built successfully for the Fedora_17_Mass_Rebuild http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/buildinfo?buildID=286344 If no volunteers show up and adapt this package and its build requirements, it will remain broken. Or somebody cleans up F-17 once more prior to its final release and _retires_ packages like this one. Is it too easy to create orphans so late in the process? Is it too easy to create orphans without telling anyone about it? -- Fedora release 17 (Beefy Miracle) - Linux 3.3.0-0.rc3.git7.2.fc17.x86_64 loadavg: 0.55 0.25 0.20 -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: rawhide/F17 broken dependencies: please stop spamming
Michael Schwendt wrote: And nevertheless, this thread is also about an orphan within F-17: # yum install insight [...] -- Finished Dependency Resolution Error: Package: insight-6.8.1-5.fc17.x86_64 (fedora) Requires: iwidgets The missing requirement had built successfully for the Fedora_17_Mass_Rebuild http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/buildinfo?buildID=286344 This is exactly why retiring it was broken and now you're making it a PITA to fix that. It's required for another package and it works, it should not have been retired. If no volunteers show up and adapt this package and its build requirements, it will remain broken. Or somebody cleans up F-17 once more prior to its final release and _retires_ packages like this one. Or, you know, people just UNRETIRE the dependency? The reason insight is orphaned in the first place is because of the indiscriminate retiring of its dependency (see the mailing list thread announcing the orphaning), the maintainer already stated he'll pick it up again if iwidgets is resurrected. Looks like a simple solution for a simple problem, and it's being made into a PITA because of religious pedantic application of a policy. IMHO, we should instruct our administrators to act in the best interest of the project no matter whether it matches the letter of the policies or not. Is it too easy to create orphans so late in the process? It's too easy to remove working packages from the distribution. Insight would NOT be orphaned if it hadn't been for that. See above. Is it too easy to create orphans without telling anyone about it? He did tell. See the thread he posted about it. Kevin Kofler -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: rawhide/F17 broken dependencies: please stop spamming
Kevin Fenzi wrote: Was there any actual request by someone who wanted to maintain this package ? 2 days after orphaning? where? In any case, I'm happy to help out... if the prospective new maintainer wants I would be happy to review the package. Just submit it and cc me. So it looks like we failed to CC the public list on the discussions, darn… This was discussed in a mail exchange with the Insight maintainer, krege (the maintainer who picked up the rest of the itcl stack just before the mass-retiring) and Bill Nottingham (the admin who did the mass-retiring, who we CCed on the whole exchange). Krege agreed to picking up iwidgets if it got unretired, but we didn't get any answer from notting, not even a no, just no reaction at all. Krege's offer to pick up iwidgets was on Feb 8, the mass-retiring was on Feb 6. Kevin Kofler -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: rawhide/F17 broken dependencies: please stop spamming
On Wed, 22 Feb 2012 17:43:23 +0100 Kevin Kofler kevin.kof...@chello.at wrote: Kevin Fenzi wrote: Was there any actual request by someone who wanted to maintain this package ? 2 days after orphaning? where? In any case, I'm happy to help out... if the prospective new maintainer wants I would be happy to review the package. Just submit it and cc me. So it looks like we failed to CC the public list on the discussions, darn… Ah, that explains my puzzlement. :( This was discussed in a mail exchange with the Insight maintainer, krege (the maintainer who picked up the rest of the itcl stack just before the mass-retiring) and Bill Nottingham (the admin who did the mass-retiring, who we CCed on the whole exchange). Krege agreed to picking up iwidgets if it got unretired, but we didn't get any answer from notting, not even a no, just no reaction at all. Krege's offer to pick up iwidgets was on Feb 8, the mass-retiring was on Feb 6. Yeah, first I see is this thread, which was 2 weeks after. Anyhow, happy to help out... point me to the review and I'll be happy to review it and get it revived. kevin signature.asc Description: PGP signature -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: rawhide/F17 broken dependencies: please stop spamming
On Wed, 22 Feb 2012 17:34:23 +0100, KK (Kevin) wrote: The reason insight is orphaned in the first place is because of the indiscriminate retiring of its dependency (see the mailing list thread announcing the orphaning), the maintainer already stated he'll pick it up again if iwidgets is resurrected. Looks like a simple solution for a simple problem, Who wants to take iwidgets? And why doesn't the insight maintainer contribute a quick review? Looks like a simple solution for a simple problem. ;) Is it too easy to create orphans so late in the process? It's too easy to remove working packages from the distribution. Insight would NOT be orphaned if it hadn't been for that. See above. Is it too easy to create orphans without telling anyone about it? He did tell. See the thread he posted about it. The iwidgets maintainer is marked as inactive in FAS. Has he announced leaving the project? Or has he left silently without notifying anyone? The person's personal Wiki page is unchanged. What has happened to him? How long has iwidgets been orphaned before pruning of FAS? -- I've seen the visibly annoyed post about insight, but it is iwidgets that has been dropped due to lack of maintainer. -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: rawhide/F17 broken dependencies: please stop spamming
Kevin Kofler (kevin.kof...@chello.at) said: So it looks like we failed to CC the public list on the discussions, darn… This was discussed in a mail exchange with the Insight maintainer, krege (the maintainer who picked up the rest of the itcl stack just before the mass-retiring) and Bill Nottingham (the admin who did the mass-retiring, who we CCed on the whole exchange). Krege agreed to picking up iwidgets if it got unretired, but we didn't get any answer from notting, not even a no, just no reaction at all. Sorry, I should have at least replied with a pointer to the unretire process. But just CC'ing me and expecting me to manually handle exceptions is no process at all - it doesn't scale, and it encourages the playing of favorites. Even if you think exceptions are warranted, file a ticket - that way it can be tracked. In any case, that thread quickly devolved into discussions of just how obsolete insight may or may not be, without any real statement of strong desire to keep it. However, what you state is 'common sense' is merely manual load. If you've got a way that we can track when packages were orphaned that's easily auditable and scriptable, we can adjust the process to have some sort of grace period. Since we don't have that data easily, that's why the policy is the way it is. Bill -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: rawhide/F17 broken dependencies: please stop spamming
Rahul Sundaram wrote: File a ticket with FESCo with your proposed change in the policy. Why does it need a policy change at all to apply a 1-2 day grace period? (More days have passed now, but that's just because we all lost a lot more time discussing this than it would have taken an admin to just hit the unretire button.) This should just be common sense! It's really stupid that we need to have every little detail written down in the letter of the policy these days because everything is being enforced in a totally inflexible and pedantic way (sometimes automatically by the software, see Bodhi). Kevin Kofler -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: rawhide/F17 broken dependencies: please stop spamming
On Tue, Feb 21, 2012 at 17:55:01 +0100, Kevin Kofler kevin.kof...@chello.at wrote: Rahul Sundaram wrote: File a ticket with FESCo with your proposed change in the policy. Why does it need a policy change at all to apply a 1-2 day grace period? (More days have passed now, but that's just because we all lost a lot more time discussing this than it would have taken an admin to just hit the unretire button.) This should just be common sense! It's really stupid that we need to have every little detail written down in the letter of the policy these days because everything is being enforced in a totally inflexible and pedantic way (sometimes automatically by the software, see Bodhi). Note that there already is a grace period. The policy used to be that a review was needed after a package was orphaned. There was discussion about that something on the order of a year ago and various time limits were discussed. Eventually a consensus appeared to be reached as using when the package is blocked from repos as the trigger for needing a review to bring it back. Note that the people involved here had over a month to deal with this and didn't. Packagers are expected to read the devel list and they should have noticed that their packages were going to be affected well in advance of the deadline. Do a new review shouldn't really be all that burdensome unless they find something signicant broken. There are two people involved so that don't have to find an outside person who has time to do the review. -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: rawhide/F17 broken dependencies: please stop spamming
Bruno Wolff III wrote: Note that there already is a grace period. The policy used to be that a review was needed after a package was orphaned. No. The policy used to be that a review was needed if the package was 1. orphaned AND 2. not updated for 3 months. And there was basically no enforcement of that policy because there was pretty much no way to enforce it (for packages which were not retired yet), which is why it got changed. (For already retired packages, you had to prove the 3 months rule to get it unretired without a rereview, which was applicable only in rare exceptional cases.) Note that the people involved here had over a month to deal with this and didn't. Packagers are expected to read the devel list and they should have noticed that their packages were going to be affected well in advance of the deadline. Half of the distro was affected by the indiscriminate mass orphaning done this time. There was no way to know which packages would still have been affected at the end. And packagers of dependent packages weren't directly notified of the impending retiring. Reading devel is not (and should not be) a requirement (only devel-announce is). In all the previous mass-retiring rounds, the process was executed as follows: 1. The orphaned packages NO other package in the distro depends on were retired. 2. For the others, the maintainer of the dependent package was directly contacted (in a personal mail discussing only the exact situation affecting him/her) and asked whether to pick up the dependency or retire his/her package. 3. The packages which didn't get picked up in 2. were retired. I don't see at all why it hasn't been done that way this time. (Maybe because there were too many affected packages to e-mail everyone personally? If so, that's yet another sign that this retiring round was way too destructive and that we need to be a lot less aggressive in dropping packages!) Do a new review shouldn't really be all that burdensome unless they find something signicant broken. There are two people involved so that don't have to find an outside person who has time to do the review. It's all a waste of everyone's time when it'd just take one person to apologize for the miscommunication and click on one f***ing button. Policies are made to serve humans. Unfortunately, here in Fedora, I get the opposite impression! :-( Kevin Kofler -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: rawhide/F17 broken dependencies: please stop spamming
On Tue, Feb 21, 2012 at 18:26:36 +0100, Kevin Kofler kevin.kof...@chello.at wrote: Half of the distro was affected by the indiscriminate mass orphaning done this time. There was no way to know which packages would still have been affected at the end. Packages that were affected via rpm dependencies were listed as part of the announcement. I looked through the list for packages I cared about and in one case let the asterisk packers know about a dependency of asterisk that was on the list that I didn't want to maintain and they picked it up. -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: rawhide/F17 broken dependencies: please stop spamming
Bruno Wolff III wrote: Packages that were affected via rpm dependencies were listed as part of the announcement. I looked through the list for packages I cared about and in one case let the asterisk packers know about a dependency of asterisk that was on the list that I didn't want to maintain and they picked it up. That list was several screens long. I don't think it's fair to blame packagers for having missed their package in it, and only noticed once the broken dependencies whines started trickling in. Kevin Kofler -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: rawhide/F17 broken dependencies: please stop spamming
On 02/21/2012 10:25 PM, Kevin Kofler wrote: Rahul Sundaram wrote: File a ticket with FESCo with your proposed change in the policy. Why does it need a policy change at all to apply a 1-2 day grace period? Any change in policy requires you to file a ticket with FESCo. If you just want to rant instead, feel free. Rahul -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: rawhide/F17 broken dependencies: please stop spamming
Rahul Sundaram wrote: On 02/21/2012 10:25 PM, Kevin Kofler wrote: Rahul Sundaram wrote: File a ticket with FESCo with your proposed change in the policy. Why does it need a policy change at all to apply a 1-2 day grace period? Any change in policy requires you to file a ticket with FESCo. If you just want to rant instead, feel free. My point is that this does not require any change in policy, just an admin applying common sense rather than following the letter of the policy to the absurd. It's unfortunate that here, the humans are serving the policy rather than the opposite! Do we really need a policy saying Use common sense. In case of conflicts, this supersedes all other policies.? Why isn't this obvious? :-/ Kevin Kofler -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: rawhide/F17 broken dependencies: please stop spamming
Rahul Sundaram wrote: On 02/21/2012 10:25 PM, Kevin Kofler wrote: Rahul Sundaram wrote: File a ticket with FESCo with your proposed change in the policy. Why does it need a policy change at all to apply a 1-2 day grace period? Any change in policy requires you to file a ticket with FESCo. If you just want to rant instead, feel free. So to make you happy, let's fight bureaucracy through bureaucracy: https://fedorahosted.org/fesco/ticket/808 :-/ We need more decisions taken through thought processes, lenience and helpfulness and fewer decisions taken through inflexible bureaucracy and rigid policies. Kevin Kofler -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: rawhide/F17 broken dependencies: please stop spamming
On Wed, 2012-02-22 at 00:25 +0100, Kevin Kofler wrote: Do we really need a policy saying Use common sense. In case of conflicts, this supersedes all other policies.? Absolutely not. Why isn't this obvious? :-/ Because common sense is anything but common, and often not sense. -- Adam Williamson Fedora QA Community Monkey IRC: adamw | Twitter: AdamW_Fedora | identi.ca: adamwfedora http://www.happyassassin.net -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: rawhide/F17 broken dependencies: please stop spamming
On 02/21/2012 06:25 PM, Kevin Kofler wrote: Do we really need a policy saying Use common sense. In case of conflicts, this supersedes all other policies.? It's often hard to distinguish common sense from equally common nonsense. -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: rawhide/F17 broken dependencies: please stop spamming
On Wed, 22 Feb 2012 00:39:10 +0100 Kevin Kofler kevin.kof...@chello.at wrote: Rahul Sundaram wrote: On 02/21/2012 10:25 PM, Kevin Kofler wrote: Rahul Sundaram wrote: File a ticket with FESCo with your proposed change in the policy. Why does it need a policy change at all to apply a 1-2 day grace period? Any change in policy requires you to file a ticket with FESCo. If you just want to rant instead, feel free. So to make you happy, let's fight bureaucracy through bureaucracy: https://fedorahosted.org/fesco/ticket/808 :-/ We need more decisions taken through thought processes, lenience and helpfulness and fewer decisions taken through inflexible bureaucracy and rigid policies. I answered in the ticket, but perhaps I'll ask here too... Was there any actual request by someone who wanted to maintain this package ? 2 days after orphaning? where? In any case, I'm happy to help out... if the prospective new maintainer wants I would be happy to review the package. Just submit it and cc me. kevin signature.asc Description: PGP signature -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: rawhide/F17 broken dependencies: please stop spamming
On Wed, Feb 22, 2012 at 12:25:59AM +0100, Kevin Kofler wrote: Rahul Sundaram wrote: On 02/21/2012 10:25 PM, Kevin Kofler wrote: Rahul Sundaram wrote: File a ticket with FESCo with your proposed change in the policy. Why does it need a policy change at all to apply a 1-2 day grace period? Any change in policy requires you to file a ticket with FESCo. If you just want to rant instead, feel free. My point is that this does not require any change in policy, just an admin applying common sense rather than following the letter of the policy to the absurd. It's unfortunate that here, the humans are serving the policy rather than the opposite! Do we really need a policy saying Use common sense. In case of conflicts, this supersedes all other policies.? Why isn't this obvious? :-/ Just a historical note since I remember some of the discussion about this: it was thought that by the time a package has been retired it has already undergone a long period where it was uncared for. This could be said to still be the case for the packages which were retired because they FTBFS for several releases. The orphan packages are more varied. Originally, there were packages that had been orphaned for many releases. I believe that now we're cleaning up all orphaned packages at each release branching so this may not be as much the case. There could still be packages that were orphaned for up to 6 months, missing out on all of a new releases pre-alpha period of development. Not sure that this is that much of a concern, though. Another thought that I remember being put out for discussion at the time (although I do not know if it informed the final decision) was that packages deserve periodic re-reviews anyhow. So if they had hit a point where they had been retired, it was a nice, well-demarcated time to require that of them. Once again, these are just historical reasons for this, current FESCo is certainly free to decide whether these reasons are still relevant or are outdated. -Toshio pgpEwEykS7KrD.pgp Description: PGP signature -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: rawhide/F17 broken dependencies: please stop spamming
On Mon, 20 Feb 2012 11:23:53 +0100, PM (Patrick) wrote: Since packages belonging to maintainer that have not changed their password have been removed, I keep being notified about a broken dependency in package insight, depending on iwidgets. iwidgets has been deprecated and thus, as long as this situation remains, insight will be broken. Consequently, I orphaned insight because it is not maintainable anymore. Even since I orphaned it, I receive lots of reports about broken dependencies for rawhide and F17. Please someone: do something to stop this spamming. I do not want to be constrained to blacklist the buildsys :-( Thanks to whoever can take an action. *You* could have avoided this by _retiring_ insight properly: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/How_to_remove_a_package_at_end_of_life You could take insight back to retire it. The reason you receive the Rawhide build report mails is that you're a member of the insight-owner@ mail alias. -- Fedora release 17 (Beefy Miracle) - Linux 3.3.0-0.rc3.git7.2.fc17.x86_64 loadavg: 0.14 0.25 0.19 -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: rawhide/F17 broken dependencies: please stop spamming
On Mon, 2012-02-20 at 13:01 +0100, Michael Schwendt wrote: *You* could have avoided this by _retiring_ insight properly: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/How_to_remove_a_package_at_end_of_life *** This is not a normal end of life: this is an assassination *** There's a maintainer (krege) who's OK to take ownership of iwidgets, but he can't because the package has been deprecated (despite the requirement from 3 packages that are still alive!) instead of being simply orphaned. -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: rawhide/F17 broken dependencies: please stop spamming
On Mon, Feb 20, 2012 at 16:56:28 +0100, Patrick Monnerat p...@datasphere.ch wrote: On Mon, 2012-02-20 at 13:01 +0100, Michael Schwendt wrote: *You* could have avoided this by _retiring_ insight properly: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/How_to_remove_a_package_at_end_of_life *** This is not a normal end of life: this is an assassination *** There's a maintainer (krege) who's OK to take ownership of iwidgets, but he can't because the package has been deprecated (despite the requirement from 3 packages that are still alive!) instead of being simply orphaned. Note that the list of packages being removed and their dependencies was posted at least a month before it happened (probably more, but I don't remember for sure). Packagers really need to read the devel list so that stuff like this doesn't catch them by surprise. The package can still be brought back, but now requires a review. But since there are at least two people interested in this happening, getting the review done shouldn't be too big of a deal. -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: rawhide/F17 broken dependencies: please stop spamming
Bruno Wolff III wrote: The package can still be brought back, but now requires a review. This is really silly, why can't we just unretire the 2 or 3 packages which were noticed the day they were retired and got an interested maintainer now? (iwidgets was one of them, but I've seen mails about 1 or 2 others here.) The reason a rereview is required for retired packages is because packages tend to bitrot if orphaned for a long time, but this is NOT the situation here. This is just completely pointless red tape making things a PITA for NO reason whatsoever. Kevin Kofler -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: rawhide/F17 broken dependencies: please stop spamming
On 02/20/2012 11:39 PM, Kevin Kofler wrote: Bruno Wolff III wrote: The package can still be brought back, but now requires a review. This is really silly, why can't we just unretire the 2 or 3 packages which were noticed the day they were retired and got an interested maintainer now? (iwidgets was one of them, but I've seen mails about 1 or 2 others here.) The reason a rereview is required for retired packages is because packages tend to bitrot if orphaned for a long time, but this is NOT the situation here. This is just completely pointless red tape making things a PITA for NO reason whatsoever. File a ticket with FESCo with your proposed change in the policy. Rahul -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: rawhide/F17 broken dependencies: please stop spamming
On Mon, 20 Feb 2012 19:09 +0100, KK (Kevin) wrote: Bruno Wolff III wrote: The package can still be brought back, but now requires a review. This is really silly, why can't we just unretire the 2 or 3 packages which were noticed the day they were retired and got an interested maintainer now? (iwidgets was one of them, but I've seen mails about 1 or 2 others here.) The reason a rereview is required for retired packages is because packages tend to bitrot if orphaned for a long time, but this is NOT the situation here. This is just completely pointless red tape making things a PITA for NO reason whatsoever. Silly or not, apparently there are at least two package maintainers who could join and return the package easily, especially since one is the previous maintainer. And who maintains the 3 packages that are alive? The same maintainers or additional ones? -- Fedora release 17 (Beefy Miracle) - Linux 3.3.0-0.rc3.git7.2.fc17.x86_64 loadavg: 1.68 1.03 0.48 -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
