Re: boot.fedoraproject.org (BFO)
On 23/01/2014 02:02 πμ, Kevin Fenzi wrote: On Thu, 23 Jan 2014 00:41:52 +0400 Peter Lemenkov lemen...@gmail.com wrote: 2014/1/23 Kevin Fenzi ke...@scrye.com: Can you please file a infrastructure ticket on this and I will get it updated. Don't know what others think, but I personally prefer GitHub pull requests because they are much simpler and don't involve any interaction with stone age software like trac or various MTAs. Just out of the curiosity why don't we mirror anything related to Fedora-Infra at GitHub? We actually have a working Fedora-Infra organisation here: https://github.com/fedora-infra While github is nice for pulls and patches, it's not so great for tickets and support needs. github issues are very primitive last I looked and wouldn't meet Fedora Infrastructures needs, IMHO. Btw I'm also playing with BFO and would love to have a chance to improve it. Unfortunately a lot of current projects still hosts on Fedorahosting which is so awful that it should be better to abandon it completely in favor of something much better (GitHub of self-hosted GitLab instance maybe) Sorry you feel that way. There was a google summer of code project to package up gitlab, but I don't think it's complete. Sorry for replying late... Yeap, gitlab packaging still is not complete due to my lack of time unfortunately. But I'm working on it :) Additionally, gitlab != github. There's a vast amount of difference between them. ;( Well that depends on what you want from such a tool. github has set a status quo and comparing it to gitlab is inevitable, I will agree. But gitlab has pretty much all the functionality you would need. You could also set an external tracker for your issues, redmine works but not sure about trac though. -- FAS : axilleas GPG : 0xABF99BE5 Blog: http://axilleas.me -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
Re: boot.fedoraproject.org (BFO)
Pierre-Yves Chibon wrote: I'm confused, are you talking about: https://fedorahosted.org/pkgdb2/ ? If this is now on Fedora Hosted, that's a good thing. :-) Thank you for that! So you don't have to feel targeted (anymore), you already did the right thing. Kevin Kofler -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
Re: boot.fedoraproject.org (BFO)
Kevin Fenzi wrote: While github is nice for pulls and patches, it's not so great for tickets and support needs. github issues are very primitive last I looked and wouldn't meet Fedora Infrastructures needs, IMHO. I also object to the idea of hosting critical parts of our infrastructure on third-party proprietary web services completely out of our control, as I already pointed out in the pkgdb2 thread. IMHO, projects where Fedora is upstream MUST be on fedorahosted.org, we should enforce that at least for our infrastructure. Kevin Kofler -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
Re: boot.fedoraproject.org (BFO)
On Wed, 2014-01-22 at 17:02 -0700, Kevin Fenzi wrote: On Thu, 23 Jan 2014 00:41:52 +0400 Peter Lemenkov lemen...@gmail.com wrote: 2014/1/23 Kevin Fenzi ke...@scrye.com: Can you please file a infrastructure ticket on this and I will get it updated. Don't know what others think, but I personally prefer GitHub pull requests because they are much simpler and don't involve any interaction with stone age software like trac or various MTAs. Just out of the curiosity why don't we mirror anything related to Fedora-Infra at GitHub? We actually have a working Fedora-Infra organisation here: https://github.com/fedora-infra While github is nice for pulls and patches, it's not so great for tickets and support needs. And you can, of course, just mail patches to mailing lists. That's what git was designed for in the first place, and it appears to work perfectly well for kernel and anaconda devs... (though the github workflow works fine too, and I've been using it quite a lot lately). has anyone yet publicly noted the irony of someone building a wildly successful proprietary SCM platform on top of a project that was written to rescue the kernel from a proprietary SCM platform, btw? :P -- 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://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
Re: boot.fedoraproject.org (BFO)
Peter Lemenkov wrote: IMHO you're absolutely wrong. Fortunately it seems that not so much people agree with you since I see a lot of activily on a given third-party proprietary web service (compared with a dead silence at fedorahosted). So actually people already voted, and they voted against Fedorahosted. You just need to realize that we already lost control here. I understand that numbers could be much more convincing and I hope somebody will measure activity at fedorahosted and at GitHub but I doubt the results disprove my point. That's why we need enforcement. There should be a statement from a competent committee (Board, FESCo, whomever) that effective NOW, stuff can ONLY be uploaded to production (and staging too, probably) infrastructure if it is either: (a) developed on Fedora Hosted or (b) has a demonstrable non-Fedora upstream and significant use at other projects (i.e., a clause intended for stuff like Trac that's clearly reuse of existing third-party community code, NOT stuff like pkgdb2). Anything that does NOT fit into either (a) or (b) (even any updates to already deployed stuff) should be REQUIRED to move to Fedora Hosted before it can be deployed. Fedora MUST NOT be at the whim of third-party code hosting services, especially proprietary ones. Kevin Kofler -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
Re: boot.fedoraproject.org (BFO)
Adam Williamson wrote: And you can, of course, just mail patches to mailing lists. That's what git was designed for in the first place, and it appears to work perfectly well for kernel and anaconda devs... Or simply attach them to an issue in the issue tracker, which works with practically ANY issue tracker other than GitHub's (which is hardcoded to allow only images (pictures) to be attached in an attempt to force the pull request process down people's throats). has anyone yet publicly noted the irony of someone building a wildly successful proprietary SCM platform on top of a project that was written to rescue the kernel from a proprietary SCM platform, btw? :P This shows that people have not learned ANYTHING from the ButtKeeper fiasco. :-( I can understand that individuals cannot afford hosting their own git server, but I don't see why: 1. they don't use the AGPLed Gitorious nor 2. why large projects with their own infrastructure rely on such third-party services, sometimes ignoring existing infrastructure such as Fedora Hosted that works perfectly fine. Kevin Kofler -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
Re: boot.fedoraproject.org (BFO)
On Fri, 24 Jan 2014 01:23:13 +0100 Kevin Kofler kevin.kof...@chello.at wrote: That's why we need enforcement. There should be a statement from a competent committee (Board, FESCo, whomever) that effective NOW, stuff can ONLY be uploaded to production (and staging too, probably) infrastructure if it is either: (a) developed on Fedora Hosted or (b) has a demonstrable non-Fedora upstream and significant use at other projects (i.e., a clause intended for stuff like Trac that's clearly reuse of existing third-party community code, NOT stuff like pkgdb2). Feel free to submit a Board or Fesco ticket with your proposal. I'm strongly -1 here. Anything that does NOT fit into either (a) or (b) (even any updates to already deployed stuff) should be REQUIRED to move to Fedora Hosted before it can be deployed. Fedora MUST NOT be at the whim of third-party code hosting services, especially proprietary ones. Why are we at anyone's whim? If github closed down today, we would simpy sync up our git repos elsewhere and move on. Granted we could loose some in flight issues or pull requests, but since it also sends those as email, we would at least have a good record of them to ask people to resubmit. kevin signature.asc Description: PGP signature -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
Re: boot.fedoraproject.org (BFO)
On Fri, 2014-01-24 at 01:23 +0100, Kevin Kofler wrote: Fedora MUST NOT be at the whim of third-party code hosting services, especially proprietary ones. I don't see how the code being on github means you're at anyone's 'whim'. git is a self-contained, distributed scm. If github turns evil, the worst possible consequence is you just move your git repos to fedorahosted and twiddle your workflow a bit. It's hardly a bitbucket situation. I don't like github being non-free, particularly, but the practical consequences of that are fairly minor. -- 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://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
Re: boot.fedoraproject.org (BFO)
On Thu, 2014-01-23 at 16:34 -0800, Adam Williamson wrote: It's hardly a bitbucket situation. Damnit, I mean bitkeeper. I have those two wires crossed somewhere in my brain. -- 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://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
Re: boot.fedoraproject.org (BFO)
On 23 January 2014 17:28, Kevin Kofler kevin.kof...@chello.at wrote: Adam Williamson wrote:request process down people's throats). has anyone yet publicly noted the irony of someone building a wildly successful proprietary SCM platform on top of a project that was written to rescue the kernel from a proprietary SCM platform, btw? :P This shows that people have not learned ANYTHING from the ButtKeeper fiasco. :-( Dude, that was so long ago in computer times that you might as well recall the great punch card disaster of 1968. Trying to remind people that something over 18 months ago might happen again rarely works. [I know this from 30+ years of doing so.] I can understand that individuals cannot afford hosting their own git server, but I don't see why: 1. they don't use the AGPLed Gitorious nor 2. why large projects with their own infrastructure rely on such third-party services, sometimes ignoring existing infrastructure such as Fedora Hosted that works perfectly fine. 'works perfectly fine' in a small set of usages. It takes a heck of a lot of babysitting to keep it working at the limited extent it does. I am not saying that I don't agree that Fedora things should be on Fedora Hosted, but don't try to overlook that fedorahosted is severely taxed with what it has already. It doesn't fit what people want and the fact that trac is primarily used with SVN but most of the users want anything but that doesn't help. Add in the fact that trying to do any sort of failover requires shared storage needs we can't meet and you have a tall stack of dishes on a ship in a storm. -- Stephen J Smoogen. -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
Re: boot.fedoraproject.org (BFO)
Hi On Thu, Jan 23, 2014 at 7:34 PM, Adam Williamson wrote: I don't like github being non-free, particularly, but the practical consequences of that are fairly minor. Tickets and history of those tickets can be important Rahul -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
Re: boot.fedoraproject.org (BFO)
On Thu, 2014-01-23 at 20:05 -0500, Rahul Sundaram wrote: Hi On Thu, Jan 23, 2014 at 7:34 PM, Adam Williamson wrote: I don't like github being non-free, particularly, but the practical consequences of that are fairly minor. Tickets and history of those tickets can be important That's true, hadn't thought of it. If I were hosting a project on github I'd probably host the ticket system somewhere else, but then I probably wouldn't host a project on github. Or, let's face it, have a project to host. :P well, I have http://happyassassin.net/osm/cov/property_addresses/cov_duplicate_addresses.sh ! I wrote it! It's all mine! Yes, it's 85 lines of comments and error and tempfile handling around three lines of 'code', but you can't take it away from me. :P -- 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://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
Re: boot.fedoraproject.org (BFO)
On 01/24/2014 01:05 AM, Rahul Sundaram wrote: Hi On Thu, Jan 23, 2014 at 7:34 PM, Adam Williamson wrote: I don't like github being non-free, particularly, but the practical consequences of that are fairly minor. Tickets and history of those tickets can be important You can export them via the API [1] by using for example [2] if you dont want to write your own... JBG 1. http://developer.github.com/v3/issues/ 2. https://gist.github.com/unbracketed/3380407 -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
Re: boot.fedoraproject.org (BFO)
Once upon a time, Kevin Kofler kevin.kof...@chello.at said: This shows that people have not learned ANYTHING from the ButtKeeper fiasco. :-( I think there's a big difference between that and Github. AFAIK Github isn't trying to claim ownership of all data and metadata related to hosted projects, or restrict who can use the tools, see the data, etc. And after all, that situation did give rise to git. Imagine if Github turned restrictive somehow, maybe someone would go and invent something even cooler to produce a whole new world of stuff! :) Seriously though, I don't see a problem with Github. It is SourceForge 2.0 as far as I can tell, and I'm sure something will come along eventually and replace it as the new hotness. I can see putting projects that even might have some non-Fedora interest on non-Fedora-hosted platforms, if only to try to attract other interest. -- Chris Adams li...@cmadams.net -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
Re: boot.fedoraproject.org (BFO)
On Fri, Jan 24, 2014 at 01:23:13AM +0100, Kevin Kofler wrote: Peter Lemenkov wrote: IMHO you're absolutely wrong. Fortunately it seems that not so much people agree with you since I see a lot of activily on a given third-party proprietary web service (compared with a dead silence at fedorahosted). So actually people already voted, and they voted against Fedorahosted. You just need to realize that we already lost control here. I understand that numbers could be much more convincing and I hope somebody will measure activity at fedorahosted and at GitHub but I doubt the results disprove my point. That's why we need enforcement. There should be a statement from a competent committee (Board, FESCo, whomever) that effective NOW, stuff can ONLY be uploaded to production (and staging too, probably) infrastructure if it is either: (a) developed on Fedora Hosted or (b) has a demonstrable non-Fedora upstream and significant use at other projects (i.e., a clause intended for stuff like Trac that's clearly reuse of existing third-party community code, NOT stuff like pkgdb2). I'm confused, are you talking about: https://fedorahosted.org/pkgdb2/ ? Just wondering if you're talking just because you want to open your mouth or if I should actually listen to you... Pierre -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
boot.fedoraproject.org (BFO)
Fedora 18 End of Life https://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/announce/2014-January/003194.html boot.fedoraproject.org (BFO): - Fedora-18-i386/x86_64 https://git.fedorahosted.org/cgit/fedora-infrastructure.git/plain/bfo/pxelinux.cfg/fedora_install.conf GOTO EOL https://git.fedorahosted.org/cgit/fedora-infrastructure.git/plain/bfo/pxelinux.cfg/fedora_eol.conf - Fedora-18-i386/x86_64-rescue https://git.fedorahosted.org/cgit/fedora-infrastructure.git/plain/bfo/pxelinux.cfg/fedora_rescue.conf GOTO NULL - Fedora-20-Alpha/Beta !? https://git.fedorahosted.org/cgit/fedora-infrastructure.git/plain/bfo/pxelinux.cfg/fedora_prerelease.conf GOTO NULL - Fedora 15 TC1 i686 Live Desktop !? https://git.fedorahosted.org/cgit/fedora-infrastructure.git/plain/bfo/pxelinux.cfg/fedora_live.conf GOTO NULL Be awesome after effects? :) poma -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
Re: boot.fedoraproject.org (BFO)
On Wed, 22 Jan 2014 19:52:23 +0100 poma pomidorabelis...@gmail.com wrote: Fedora 18 End of Life https://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/announce/2014-January/003194.html boot.fedoraproject.org (BFO): - Fedora-18-i386/x86_64 https://git.fedorahosted.org/cgit/fedora-infrastructure.git/plain/bfo/pxelinux.cfg/fedora_install.conf GOTO EOL https://git.fedorahosted.org/cgit/fedora-infrastructure.git/plain/bfo/pxelinux.cfg/fedora_eol.conf - Fedora-18-i386/x86_64-rescue https://git.fedorahosted.org/cgit/fedora-infrastructure.git/plain/bfo/pxelinux.cfg/fedora_rescue.conf GOTO NULL - Fedora-20-Alpha/Beta !? https://git.fedorahosted.org/cgit/fedora-infrastructure.git/plain/bfo/pxelinux.cfg/fedora_prerelease.conf GOTO NULL - Fedora 15 TC1 i686 Live Desktop !? https://git.fedorahosted.org/cgit/fedora-infrastructure.git/plain/bfo/pxelinux.cfg/fedora_live.conf GOTO NULL Be awesome after effects? :) Can you please file a infrastructure ticket on this and I will get it updated. https://fedorahosted.org/fedora-infrastructure/newticket Thanks. kevin signature.asc Description: PGP signature -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
Re: boot.fedoraproject.org (BFO)
On 22.01.2014 21:03, Kevin Fenzi wrote: On Wed, 22 Jan 2014 19:52:23 +0100 poma pomidorabelis...@gmail.com wrote: Fedora 18 End of Life https://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/announce/2014-January/003194.html boot.fedoraproject.org (BFO): - Fedora-18-i386/x86_64 https://git.fedorahosted.org/cgit/fedora-infrastructure.git/plain/bfo/pxelinux.cfg/fedora_install.conf GOTO EOL https://git.fedorahosted.org/cgit/fedora-infrastructure.git/plain/bfo/pxelinux.cfg/fedora_eol.conf - Fedora-18-i386/x86_64-rescue https://git.fedorahosted.org/cgit/fedora-infrastructure.git/plain/bfo/pxelinux.cfg/fedora_rescue.conf GOTO NULL - Fedora-20-Alpha/Beta !? https://git.fedorahosted.org/cgit/fedora-infrastructure.git/plain/bfo/pxelinux.cfg/fedora_prerelease.conf GOTO NULL - Fedora 15 TC1 i686 Live Desktop !? https://git.fedorahosted.org/cgit/fedora-infrastructure.git/plain/bfo/pxelinux.cfg/fedora_live.conf GOTO NULL Be awesome after effects? :) Can you please file a infrastructure ticket on this and I will get it updated. https://fedorahosted.org/fedora-infrastructure/newticket Thanks. kevin Error! The following error(s) have occurred with your request: username: 'poma' already exists. :) Sorry, NoGO. poma -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
Re: boot.fedoraproject.org (BFO)
2014/1/23 Kevin Fenzi ke...@scrye.com: Can you please file a infrastructure ticket on this and I will get it updated. Don't know what others think, but I personally prefer GitHub pull requests because they are much simpler and don't involve any interaction with stone age software like trac or various MTAs. Just out of the curiosity why don't we mirror anything related to Fedora-Infra at GitHub? We actually have a working Fedora-Infra organisation here: https://github.com/fedora-infra Btw I'm also playing with BFO and would love to have a chance to improve it. Unfortunately a lot of current projects still hosts on Fedorahosting which is so awful that it should be better to abandon it completely in favor of something much better (GitHub of self-hosted GitLab instance maybe) -- With best regards, Peter Lemenkov. -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
Re: boot.fedoraproject.org (BFO)
On Thu, 23 Jan 2014 00:41:52 +0400 Peter Lemenkov lemen...@gmail.com wrote: 2014/1/23 Kevin Fenzi ke...@scrye.com: Can you please file a infrastructure ticket on this and I will get it updated. Don't know what others think, but I personally prefer GitHub pull requests because they are much simpler and don't involve any interaction with stone age software like trac or various MTAs. Just out of the curiosity why don't we mirror anything related to Fedora-Infra at GitHub? We actually have a working Fedora-Infra organisation here: https://github.com/fedora-infra While github is nice for pulls and patches, it's not so great for tickets and support needs. github issues are very primitive last I looked and wouldn't meet Fedora Infrastructures needs, IMHO. Btw I'm also playing with BFO and would love to have a chance to improve it. Unfortunately a lot of current projects still hosts on Fedorahosting which is so awful that it should be better to abandon it completely in favor of something much better (GitHub of self-hosted GitLab instance maybe) Sorry you feel that way. There was a google summer of code project to package up gitlab, but I don't think it's complete. Additionally, gitlab != github. There's a vast amount of difference between them. ;( kevin signature.asc Description: PGP signature -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
Re: boot.fedoraproject.org (bfo)
On Wed, 2011-08-10 at 18:26 +0200, Rudolf Kastl wrote: Hello, A bit of (hopefully) constructive feedback. It might help with testing and adoption of fedora if the rcs and alpha releases are made available in the bfo setup. Actually within the experimental folder there is only a tc1 of f15 currently. Potential ideas for bfo: * keep the experimental option more up to date in the future. * while simple to install make the lkrn available in a ready to use rpm Last time i tried an install via bfo it didnt really select mirrors close to me. (i think for the install it didnt use a mirrorlist but instead a hardcoded repo by default) Is this still the case? AFAIK, mirrors are choosed by MirrorManager running on mirrors.fedoraproject.org which is used by yum and it's repos' configuration. It's quite easy to find out which repos' urls are used during the installation. But I doubt there are any different from urls used everywhere else. Vratislav Podzimek -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: boot.fedoraproject.org (bfo)
On 08/11/2011 05:26 AM, Vratislav Podzimek wrote: On Wed, 2011-08-10 at 18:26 +0200, Rudolf Kastl wrote: Last time i tried an install via bfo it didnt really select mirrors close to me. (i think for the install it didnt use a mirrorlist but instead a hardcoded repo by default) Is this still the case? AFAIK, mirrors are choosed by MirrorManager running on mirrors.fedoraproject.org which is used by yum and it's repos' configuration. It's quite easy to find out which repos' urls are used during the installation. Anaconda itself does not disclose the identity of any mirrors it uses, and after the install there is no record of which mirrors were used. Please specify exactly what you use to identify the specific mirrors. But I doubt there are any different from urls used everywhere else. The tail of the path (the filename and last few directory names) is certainly the same, but each mirror is free to place the tree arbitrarily in its filesystem, and many do. -- -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: boot.fedoraproject.org (bfo)
On Thu, 2011-08-11 at 06:46 -0700, John Reiser wrote: On 08/11/2011 05:26 AM, Vratislav Podzimek wrote: On Wed, 2011-08-10 at 18:26 +0200, Rudolf Kastl wrote: Last time i tried an install via bfo it didnt really select mirrors close to me. (i think for the install it didnt use a mirrorlist but instead a hardcoded repo by default) Is this still the case? AFAIK, mirrors are choosed by MirrorManager running on mirrors.fedoraproject.org which is used by yum and it's repos' configuration. It's quite easy to find out which repos' urls are used during the installation. Anaconda itself does not disclose the identity of any mirrors it uses, and after the install there is no record of which mirrors were used. Please specify exactly what you use to identify the specific mirrors. What I meant is that you can get repos' configuration (at least for default repos) during installation: 1) switch to shell (with Ctlr+F2) 2) ls /etc/anaconda.repos.d/ 3) cat SOME_REPO_CONFIG_FILE When I use this for 'fedora.repo' file I can see following line: mirrorlist=https://mirrors.fedoraproject.org/metalink?repo=fedora-$releaseverarch=$basearch which reveals the fact that yum (ran during the installation) will use MirrorManager running on mirrors.fedoraproject.org (which is the same as in an already installed system). But I doubt there are any different from urls used everywhere else. The tail of the path (the filename and last few directory names) is certainly the same, but each mirror is free to place the tree arbitrarily in its filesystem, and many do. As I mentioned before, the MirrorManager is responsible for returning the right mirrorlist already sorted out from the best mirror to the worst one (see [1] if you are interested). You can test it by entering mirrorlist URL into your web browser. So I really doubt it's somehow specific for the bfo. Vratislav Podzimek [1] https://fedorahosted.org/mirrormanager/wiki -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: boot.fedoraproject.org (bfo)
2011/8/11 Vratislav Podzimek vpodz...@redhat.com: On Thu, 2011-08-11 at 06:46 -0700, John Reiser wrote: On 08/11/2011 05:26 AM, Vratislav Podzimek wrote: On Wed, 2011-08-10 at 18:26 +0200, Rudolf Kastl wrote: Last time i tried an install via bfo it didnt really select mirrors close to me. (i think for the install it didnt use a mirrorlist but instead a hardcoded repo by default) Is this still the case? AFAIK, mirrors are choosed by MirrorManager running on mirrors.fedoraproject.org which is used by yum and it's repos' configuration. It's quite easy to find out which repos' urls are used during the installation. Anaconda itself does not disclose the identity of any mirrors it uses, and after the install there is no record of which mirrors were used. Please specify exactly what you use to identify the specific mirrors. What I meant is that you can get repos' configuration (at least for default repos) during installation: 1) switch to shell (with Ctlr+F2) 2) ls /etc/anaconda.repos.d/ 3) cat SOME_REPO_CONFIG_FILE When I use this for 'fedora.repo' file I can see following line: mirrorlist=https://mirrors.fedoraproject.org/metalink?repo=fedora-$releaseverarch=$basearch which reveals the fact that yum (ran during the installation) will use MirrorManager running on mirrors.fedoraproject.org (which is the same as in an already installed system). But I doubt there are any different from urls used everywhere else. The tail of the path (the filename and last few directory names) is certainly the same, but each mirror is free to place the tree arbitrarily in its filesystem, and many do. As I mentioned before, the MirrorManager is responsible for returning the right mirrorlist already sorted out from the best mirror to the worst one (see [1] if you are interested). You can test it by entering mirrorlist URL into your web browser. So I really doubt it's somehow specific for the bfo. Vratislav Podzimek well then it isnt anymore. kind regards, Rudolf Kastl [1] https://fedorahosted.org/mirrormanager/wiki -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: boot.fedoraproject.org (bfo)
On Wed, 10 Aug 2011 18:26:43 +0200 Rudolf Kastl che...@gmail.com wrote: Hello, A bit of (hopefully) constructive feedback. It might help with testing and adoption of fedora if the rcs and alpha releases are made available in the bfo setup. Actually within the experimental folder there is only a tc1 of f15 currently. Good idea. We can look at adding this into the release process... Potential ideas for bfo: * keep the experimental option more up to date in the future. * while simple to install make the lkrn available in a ready to use rpm gpxe-bootimgs package? Last time i tried an install via bfo it didnt really select mirrors close to me. (i think for the install it didnt use a mirrorlist but instead a hardcoded repo by default) Is this still the case? It uses mirrormanager (as downthread indicates). This uses geoip or specific mirror requests (ie, mirrors can say they service all of a specific IP range or ASN). It might be that you are in a geoip region that doesn't have many fast mirrors in the list? If you go to the mirrormanager link from the same IP you were installing from it should give you a list you can look at. kevin signature.asc Description: PGP signature -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
boot.fedoraproject.org (bfo)
Hello, A bit of (hopefully) constructive feedback. It might help with testing and adoption of fedora if the rcs and alpha releases are made available in the bfo setup. Actually within the experimental folder there is only a tc1 of f15 currently. Potential ideas for bfo: * keep the experimental option more up to date in the future. * while simple to install make the lkrn available in a ready to use rpm Last time i tried an install via bfo it didnt really select mirrors close to me. (i think for the install it didnt use a mirrorlist but instead a hardcoded repo by default) Is this still the case? kind regards, Rudolf Kastl -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
