[EPEL-devel] Re: related question / off topic - EPEL Proposal #1: Rechartering

[~Stack~]

On 02/22/2016 09:06 PM, Peter wrote:
> On 19/02/16 15:16, ~Stack~ wrote:
>> Thanks for replying. Makes sense. But what would the harm be to move a
>> package into a separate "retired" repo? Community would know that it
>> isn't maintained and yet the package wouldn't just disappear completely.
>> I guess the difficult question would then be, how long is the package
>> kept till it needs to be pruned? 1yr? 6mo? Still, it would be nice to
>> give the user base the option to pull the packages they need out on a
>> long enough scale that they have time to discover it with new builds.
> 
> My suggestion would be for the life of the point release of the repos
> that's built against.  Since the package is not going to be built
> against newer point releases of RHEL it is less likely to continue to
> work after RHEL moves to a new point release (say from 7.2 to 7.3).  We
> could have an individual "retired" repo for each point release that
> would see the packages built against that release moved there.  We would
> not necessarily need get rid of older retired repos, but just maintain a
> symbolic link to the latest one.
> 
> So for example if package foo was last built against RHEL 7.2 before it
> was retired, we could move it to the repo "epel-retired-7.2" and there
> would be a symbolic link for "epel-retired" that points to
> epel-retired-7.2 until RHEL 7.3 is released.

In my opinion, that is a brilliant idea.

I like it! :-)

~Stack~






signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
___
epel-devel mailing list
epel-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
http://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/epel-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org

[EPEL-devel] Re: related question / off topic - EPEL Proposal #1: Rechartering

[Peter]

On 19/02/16 15:16, ~Stack~ wrote:
> Thanks for replying. Makes sense. But what would the harm be to move a
> package into a separate "retired" repo? Community would know that it
> isn't maintained and yet the package wouldn't just disappear completely.
> I guess the difficult question would then be, how long is the package
> kept till it needs to be pruned? 1yr? 6mo? Still, it would be nice to
> give the user base the option to pull the packages they need out on a
> long enough scale that they have time to discover it with new builds.

My suggestion would be for the life of the point release of the repos
that's built against.  Since the package is not going to be built
against newer point releases of RHEL it is less likely to continue to
work after RHEL moves to a new point release (say from 7.2 to 7.3).  We
could have an individual "retired" repo for each point release that
would see the packages built against that release moved there.  We would
not necessarily need get rid of older retired repos, but just maintain a
symbolic link to the latest one.

So for example if package foo was last built against RHEL 7.2 before it
was retired, we could move it to the repo "epel-retired-7.2" and there
would be a symbolic link for "epel-retired" that points to
epel-retired-7.2 until RHEL 7.3 is released.


Peter
___
epel-devel mailing list
epel-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
http://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/epel-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org

[EPEL-devel] Re: related question / off topic - EPEL Proposal #1: Rechartering

[Stephen John Smoogen]

On 18 February 2016 at 19:16, ~Stack~  wrote:
> On 02/18/2016 06:29 PM, Stephen John Smoogen wrote:
>> On 18 February 2016 at 14:13, ~Stack~  wrote:
>>> On 02/18/2016 01:56 PM, Kevin Fenzi wrote:
 On Tue, 16 Feb 2016 23:24:58 -0700
 Stephen John Smoogen  wrote:
>>> [snip]
> 1. Packages will never disappear. [They don't disappear from Fedora 12
>even if it is archived.. ]

 To my understanding we never made this promise. We should try and
 communicate why it's NOT something we promise.
>>>
>>> Could you elaborate on this please? I have asked before, but didn't
>>> really get an answer. I don't understand this.
>>>
>>
>> Software in EPEL follows many of the same rules as software in Fedora.
>> If there isn't an active maintainer the software is removed. This is
>> because a lot of people expect that the software is going to be
>> getting updates and bug fixes when it is there. If it isn't there it
>> is clear that it isn't getting any bug fixes.
>>
>> While as a user this is a major pain in the butt, on the other side
>> (maintainers and developers of the software) it is a major pain when
>> the opposite occurs. Developers get complaints about software they no
>> longer have any interest in and try to find someone to get rid of the
>> old software. People who are maintainers of other packages get long
>> hate emails about why is this software still in XYZ repository if no
>> one is going to care about it. It burnt out a lot of the early
>> repository people because they had made a package for someone at some
>> point but really didn't have any care for it to be there any longer
>> but all they were getting was crap for it being there.
>
> Thanks for replying. Makes sense. But what would the harm be to move a
> package into a separate "retired" repo? Community would know that it
> isn't maintained and yet the package wouldn't just disappear completely.
> I guess the difficult question would then be, how long is the package
> kept till it needs to be pruned? 1yr? 6mo? Still, it would be nice to
> give the user base the option to pull the packages they need out on a
> long enough scale that they have time to discover it with new builds.
>

So every package ever signed is still in the koji build server if you
know where to look for it. However I am hoping next week to write up
some proposals that could accomplish this.

> I also wonder how many people have been bit by this. I know I have
> supplied packages out of my repos for others before, but it has only
> been a handful. It seems to have bitten me several times in the last
> year and all were for EL6, but (fingers crossed) I am done with the EL6
> boxes in <2yrs with a full migration to either EL7 or Ubuntu LTS and
> won't need the EL6 repo any more. :-)
>

A lot of people have been bit as it is nearly a daily occurrence in
#epel on the irc server.

> Thanks again!
> ~Stack~
>
>
> ___
> epel-devel mailing list
> epel-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
> http://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/epel-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
>



-- 
Stephen J Smoogen.
___
epel-devel mailing list
epel-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
http://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/epel-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org

[EPEL-devel] Re: related question / off topic - EPEL Proposal #1: Rechartering

[Manuel Wolfshant]

On 02/19/2016 04:16 AM, ~Stack~ wrote:

[snip]

1. Packages will never disappear. [They don't disappear from Fedora 12
even if it is archived.. ]

To my understanding we never made this promise. We should try and
communicate why it's NOT something we promise.

Could you elaborate on this please? I have asked before, but didn't
really get an answer. I don't understand this.


Software in EPEL follows many of the same rules as software in Fedora.
If there isn't an active maintainer the software is removed. This is
because a lot of people expect that the software is going to be
getting updates and bug fixes when it is there. If it isn't there it
is clear that it isn't getting any bug fixes.

While as a user this is a major pain in the butt, on the other side
(maintainers and developers of the software) it is a major pain when
the opposite occurs. Developers get complaints about software they no
longer have any interest in and try to find someone to get rid of the
old software. People who are maintainers of other packages get long
hate emails about why is this software still in XYZ repository if no
one is going to care about it. It burnt out a lot of the early
repository people because they had made a package for someone at some
point but really didn't have any care for it to be there any longer
but all they were getting was crap for it being there.

Thanks for replying. Makes sense. But what would the harm be to move a
package into a separate "retired" repo?


We could expand https://dl.fedoraproject.org/pub/archive/ for this 
purpose, after all


___
epel-devel mailing list
epel-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
http://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/epel-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org

[EPEL-devel] Re: related question / off topic - EPEL Proposal #1: Rechartering

[~Stack~]

On 02/18/2016 06:29 PM, Stephen John Smoogen wrote:
> On 18 February 2016 at 14:13, ~Stack~  wrote:
>> On 02/18/2016 01:56 PM, Kevin Fenzi wrote:
>>> On Tue, 16 Feb 2016 23:24:58 -0700
>>> Stephen John Smoogen  wrote:
>> [snip]
 1. Packages will never disappear. [They don't disappear from Fedora 12
even if it is archived.. ]
>>>
>>> To my understanding we never made this promise. We should try and
>>> communicate why it's NOT something we promise.
>>
>> Could you elaborate on this please? I have asked before, but didn't
>> really get an answer. I don't understand this.
>>
> 
> Software in EPEL follows many of the same rules as software in Fedora.
> If there isn't an active maintainer the software is removed. This is
> because a lot of people expect that the software is going to be
> getting updates and bug fixes when it is there. If it isn't there it
> is clear that it isn't getting any bug fixes.
> 
> While as a user this is a major pain in the butt, on the other side
> (maintainers and developers of the software) it is a major pain when
> the opposite occurs. Developers get complaints about software they no
> longer have any interest in and try to find someone to get rid of the
> old software. People who are maintainers of other packages get long
> hate emails about why is this software still in XYZ repository if no
> one is going to care about it. It burnt out a lot of the early
> repository people because they had made a package for someone at some
> point but really didn't have any care for it to be there any longer
> but all they were getting was crap for it being there.

Thanks for replying. Makes sense. But what would the harm be to move a
package into a separate "retired" repo? Community would know that it
isn't maintained and yet the package wouldn't just disappear completely.
I guess the difficult question would then be, how long is the package
kept till it needs to be pruned? 1yr? 6mo? Still, it would be nice to
give the user base the option to pull the packages they need out on a
long enough scale that they have time to discover it with new builds.

I also wonder how many people have been bit by this. I know I have
supplied packages out of my repos for others before, but it has only
been a handful. It seems to have bitten me several times in the last
year and all were for EL6, but (fingers crossed) I am done with the EL6
boxes in <2yrs with a full migration to either EL7 or Ubuntu LTS and
won't need the EL6 repo any more. :-)

Thanks again!
~Stack~



signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
___
epel-devel mailing list
epel-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
http://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/epel-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org

[EPEL-devel] Re: related question / off topic - EPEL Proposal #1: Rechartering

[Stephen John Smoogen]

On 18 February 2016 at 14:13, ~Stack~  wrote:
> On 02/18/2016 01:56 PM, Kevin Fenzi wrote:
>> On Tue, 16 Feb 2016 23:24:58 -0700
>> Stephen John Smoogen  wrote:
> [snip]
>>> 1. Packages will never disappear. [They don't disappear from Fedora 12
>>>even if it is archived.. ]
>>
>> To my understanding we never made this promise. We should try and
>> communicate why it's NOT something we promise.
>
> Could you elaborate on this please? I have asked before, but didn't
> really get an answer. I don't understand this.
>

Software in EPEL follows many of the same rules as software in Fedora.
If there isn't an active maintainer the software is removed. This is
because a lot of people expect that the software is going to be
getting updates and bug fixes when it is there. If it isn't there it
is clear that it isn't getting any bug fixes.

While as a user this is a major pain in the butt, on the other side
(maintainers and developers of the software) it is a major pain when
the opposite occurs. Developers get complaints about software they no
longer have any interest in and try to find someone to get rid of the
old software. People who are maintainers of other packages get long
hate emails about why is this software still in XYZ repository if no
one is going to care about it. It burnt out a lot of the early
repository people because they had made a package for someone at some
point but really didn't have any care for it to be there any longer
but all they were getting was crap for it being there.

So in Fedora and EPEL it is simple, you want a package that no one
else wants.. you maintain the package that no one else wants.


> One of the reasons why I run my own mirror for my server farm is so that
> I can rsync mirror EPEL _without_ doing a delete. Why? Because this
> happens to me _all_ the time:
>
> Day 1: Install package from EPEL.
> Day 2: What do you mean the package isn't found? Look at main repo.
> Shit. Package was there yesterday! Dig through mailing list for an hour
> until I find a reason (some times I don't find a reason at all and have
> to dig through Fedora's Koji for one).
>
> I get that there are a dozen valid reasons for a package to no longer be
> updated, but as long as it keeps working I don't understand why it has
> to be deleted. I have a couple dozen packages that I still install for
> my user base that haven't been in the main EPEL repo in a year.
>
> My mirror for just 6 & 7 is ~100GB now. Small price for me since it
> doesn't delete which has saved my butt numerous times when a package
> suddenly disappears.
>
> Thanks!
> ~Stack~
>
>
>
> ___
> epel-devel mailing list
> epel-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
> http://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/epel-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
>



-- 
Stephen J Smoogen.
___
epel-devel mailing list
epel-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
http://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/epel-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org