Re: Proposal: Stewardship Group / SIG for taking care of otherwise "module-only" packages
> "MH" == Miro Hrončok writes: MH> You realize that once it is maintained by the group, nobody else is MH> going to take it? When the stewardship SIG maintains a package, it should be for the sole purpose of keeping it around just long enough to avoid serious disruption that would be caused by that package being removed from the distribution. The SIG shouldn't be maintaining things indefinitely and should always give the expectation that the packages _will_ be retired (not just orphaned again) unless someone picks them up. - J< ___ devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
Re: Proposal: Stewardship Group / SIG for taking care of otherwise "module-only" packages
On Thu, Mar 28, 2019 at 11:57 AM Miro Hrončok wrote: > > On 27. 03. 19 20:53, Fabio Valentini wrote:> On the other side, I don't think > that the problem of orphaned > > "important" packages will go away, and this group can offer > > maintenance until a "proper" new maintainer for those packages is > > found. > > You realize that once it is maintained by the group, nobody else is going to > take it? I realize that these packages won't be tracked by the weekly "Orphaned packages" report anymore, but I don't think that accumulating more and more packages is sustainable, either. So I was thinking about regularly (monthly or so?) posting the list of packages that's currently maintained by the SIG, and actively ask for new maintainers, similar to the "orphaned packages" report. Fabio > -- > 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://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html > 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://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
Re: Proposal: Stewardship Group / SIG for taking care of otherwise "module-only" packages
On Thu, Mar 28, 2019 at 11:46 AM Aleksandra Fedorova wrote: > > I propose to change the scope of the SIG a bit. > > Maintaining packages could be one of the activities of the SIG, but its > primary purpose should be to deal with this topic in general. > > Watch for orphans, develop orphaning and retirement workflows, develop a > strategy how to manage those cases, how to prevent them, suggest guidelines > on how to decide whether or not one should move package to the module - > topics like that. > > It extends the scope, but it also opens some possibilities for us to work on > the root cause. > > What do you think? I agree 100% here. Since my intention was to improve the situation around orphaned packages, this is exactly what I was thinking about: - provide (temporary) maintenance of important, orphaned packages - monitor orphaned packages, spot issues early, actively look for new maintainers - probably report the current status regularly - discuss and refine the current orphaning / retirement process Fabio > -- > Aleksandra Fedorova > bookwar > > > ___ > devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org > To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org > Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html > 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://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
Re: Proposal: Stewardship Group / SIG for taking care of otherwise "module-only" packages
On 27. 03. 19 20:53, Fabio Valentini wrote:> On the other side, I don't think that the problem of orphaned "important" packages will go away, and this group can offer maintenance until a "proper" new maintainer for those packages is found. You realize that once it is maintained by the group, nobody else is going to take it? -- 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://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
Re: Proposal: Stewardship Group / SIG for taking care of otherwise "module-only" packages
I propose to change the scope of the SIG a bit. Maintaining packages could be one of the activities of the SIG, but its primary purpose should be to deal with this topic in general. Watch for orphans, develop orphaning and retirement workflows, develop a strategy how to manage those cases, how to prevent them, suggest guidelines on how to decide whether or not one should move package to the module - topics like that. It extends the scope, but it also opens some possibilities for us to work on the root cause. What do you think? -- Aleksandra Fedorova bookwar ___ devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
Re: Proposal: Stewardship Group / SIG for taking care of otherwise "module-only" packages
On Wed, Mar 27, 2019 at 8:13 PM Kevin Fenzi wrote: > > On 2/15/19 5:16 AM, Fabio Valentini wrote: > > On Fri, Feb 15, 2019 at 2:14 PM Neal Gompa wrote: > >> > >> This group would be for maintaining packages that are modularized in a > >> non-module context so that it's actually usable by the broader > >> ecosystem. Modules are not usable for non-module packages, and third > >> parties building on top of Fedora can't use modules at all either. > > That is indeed sadly true right now, but that should change. > > >> Since module developers don't care about these users, this SIG will. > > I don't think that's true. > > > Exactly. This clarification is definitely more succinct than I > > anything I could have said. > > Well, does that mean the stewardship sig will stop existing once we can > build non modular content against modules? I was seeing it as more long > term. Probably both. The primary reason for starting this group now was the issues around modularizing packages before the infrastructure had caught up. On the other side, I don't think that the problem of orphaned "important" packages will go away, and this group can offer maintenance until a "proper" new maintainer for those packages is found. > >> Fabio, I'm willing to help where I can with this, too. > > > > Thank you! > > I don't have much spare time these days, but feel free to add me to the > group/list and I can help as time permits. > > kevin > Thank you Kevin, I've added you to the group and the list. Fabio > ___ > devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org > To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org > Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html > 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://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
Re: Proposal: Stewardship Group / SIG for taking care of otherwise "module-only" packages
On 2/15/19 5:16 AM, Fabio Valentini wrote: > On Fri, Feb 15, 2019 at 2:14 PM Neal Gompa wrote: >> >> This group would be for maintaining packages that are modularized in a >> non-module context so that it's actually usable by the broader >> ecosystem. Modules are not usable for non-module packages, and third >> parties building on top of Fedora can't use modules at all either. That is indeed sadly true right now, but that should change. >> Since module developers don't care about these users, this SIG will. I don't think that's true. > Exactly. This clarification is definitely more succinct than I > anything I could have said. Well, does that mean the stewardship sig will stop existing once we can build non modular content against modules? I was seeing it as more long term. >> Fabio, I'm willing to help where I can with this, too. > > Thank you! I don't have much spare time these days, but feel free to add me to the group/list and I can help as time permits. kevin signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature ___ devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
Re: Proposal: Stewardship Group / SIG for taking care of otherwise "module-only" packages
On Fri, Feb 15, 2019 at 10:43 AM Miro Hrončok wrote:
>
> On 13. 02. 19 15:32, Fabio Valentini wrote:
> > On Wed, Feb 13, 2019 at 3:23 PM Florian Weimer wrote:
> >>
> >> * Fabio Valentini:
> >>
> >>> In the past few weeks, it has come up regularly that future
> >>> "module-only" packages are orphaned (and hence will soon be retired),
> >>> and nobody stepped up to fix this issue - especially for non-leaf
> >>> packages. I don't think fedora as a project has a solution for this
> >>> yet.
> >>>
> >>> I propose to create a "Stewardship" Group / SIG that will take care of
> >>> such packages - either until a new main maintainer steps up, or until
> >>> modularity matures enough so it won't be necessary anymore. (Or, until
> >>> it dies a quiet death, which is always a possibility.) However, I
> >>> think this is necessary until the situation stabilizes.
> >>
> >> The name sounds very confusing to me, considering that this seems to be
> >> specific to modular content.
> >
> > That's why I'm asking for comments. I failed to come up with a better
> > name, though.
> >
> > This Group / SIG would provide "classic" maintainership for otherwise
> > semi-abandoned packages that only live on as franken-packages
> > ("modules"), until the remaining shortcomings of modules are overcome,
> > or until they are abandoned.
> >
> > But neither "Nostalgia SIG", "Classic Packaging SIG", "Stewardship
> > SIG", nor "Package Foster Care SIG" names describe this situation
> > well, either.
> > At this point, my English / foreign language skills fail me. Better
> > suggestions are welcome :)
>
> Clusterfuck Prevention SIG?
>
Sanity Preservation SIG. :D
--
真実はいつも一つ！/ Always, there's only one truth!
___
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives:
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
Re: Proposal: Stewardship Group / SIG for taking care of otherwise "module-only" packages
On 15. 02. 19 14:14, Neal Gompa wrote:
On Fri, Feb 15, 2019 at 7:46 AM Florian Weimer wrote:
* Fabio Valentini:
On Wed, Feb 13, 2019 at 3:23 PM Florian Weimer wrote:
* Fabio Valentini:
In the past few weeks, it has come up regularly that future
"module-only" packages are orphaned (and hence will soon be retired),
and nobody stepped up to fix this issue - especially for non-leaf
packages. I don't think fedora as a project has a solution for this
yet.
I propose to create a "Stewardship" Group / SIG that will take care of
such packages - either until a new main maintainer steps up, or until
modularity matures enough so it won't be necessary anymore. (Or, until
it dies a quiet death, which is always a possibility.) However, I
think this is necessary until the situation stabilizes.
The name sounds very confusing to me, considering that this seems to be
specific to modular content.
That's why I'm asking for comments. I failed to come up with a better
name, though.
This Group / SIG would provide "classic" maintainership for otherwise
semi-abandoned packages that only live on as franken-packages
("modules"), until the remaining shortcomings of modules are overcome,
or until they are abandoned.
It's still not clear to me what this group is supposed to do.
Does the group produce modular or non-modular content? What would
qualify a package for maintenance by this group?
Why don't we need this in a non-module context? Why do modules require
such a group?
This group would be for maintaining packages that are modularized in a
non-module context so that it's actually usable by the broader
ecosystem. Modules are not usable for non-module packages, and third
parties building on top of Fedora can't use modules at all either.
Since module developers don't care about these users, this SIG will.
How can I help solve this(*) on FESCo level?
I think this is tearing Fedora apart.
However we cannot forbid packagers to orphan their packages.
(*) that module developers don't care about these users
--
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://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives:
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
Re: Proposal: Stewardship Group / SIG for taking care of otherwise "module-only" packages
On Fri, Feb 15, 2019 at 2:14 PM Neal Gompa wrote:
>
> On Fri, Feb 15, 2019 at 7:46 AM Florian Weimer wrote:
> >
> > * Fabio Valentini:
> >
> > > On Wed, Feb 13, 2019 at 3:23 PM Florian Weimer wrote:
> > >>
> > >> * Fabio Valentini:
> > >>
> > >> > In the past few weeks, it has come up regularly that future
> > >> > "module-only" packages are orphaned (and hence will soon be retired),
> > >> > and nobody stepped up to fix this issue - especially for non-leaf
> > >> > packages. I don't think fedora as a project has a solution for this
> > >> > yet.
> > >> >
> > >> > I propose to create a "Stewardship" Group / SIG that will take care of
> > >> > such packages - either until a new main maintainer steps up, or until
> > >> > modularity matures enough so it won't be necessary anymore. (Or, until
> > >> > it dies a quiet death, which is always a possibility.) However, I
> > >> > think this is necessary until the situation stabilizes.
> > >>
> > >> The name sounds very confusing to me, considering that this seems to be
> > >> specific to modular content.
> > >
> > > That's why I'm asking for comments. I failed to come up with a better
> > > name, though.
> > >
> > > This Group / SIG would provide "classic" maintainership for otherwise
> > > semi-abandoned packages that only live on as franken-packages
> > > ("modules"), until the remaining shortcomings of modules are overcome,
> > > or until they are abandoned.
> >
> > It's still not clear to me what this group is supposed to do.
> >
> > Does the group produce modular or non-modular content? What would
> > qualify a package for maintenance by this group?
> >
> > Why don't we need this in a non-module context? Why do modules require
> > such a group?
> >
>
> This group would be for maintaining packages that are modularized in a
> non-module context so that it's actually usable by the broader
> ecosystem. Modules are not usable for non-module packages, and third
> parties building on top of Fedora can't use modules at all either.
> Since module developers don't care about these users, this SIG will.
Exactly. This clarification is definitely more succinct than I
anything I could have said.
> Fabio, I'm willing to help where I can with this, too.
Thank you!
>
> --
> 真実はいつも一つ！/ Always, there's only one truth!
___
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives:
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
Re: Proposal: Stewardship Group / SIG for taking care of otherwise "module-only" packages
On Fri, Feb 15, 2019 at 7:46 AM Florian Weimer wrote:
>
> * Fabio Valentini:
>
> > On Wed, Feb 13, 2019 at 3:23 PM Florian Weimer wrote:
> >>
> >> * Fabio Valentini:
> >>
> >> > In the past few weeks, it has come up regularly that future
> >> > "module-only" packages are orphaned (and hence will soon be retired),
> >> > and nobody stepped up to fix this issue - especially for non-leaf
> >> > packages. I don't think fedora as a project has a solution for this
> >> > yet.
> >> >
> >> > I propose to create a "Stewardship" Group / SIG that will take care of
> >> > such packages - either until a new main maintainer steps up, or until
> >> > modularity matures enough so it won't be necessary anymore. (Or, until
> >> > it dies a quiet death, which is always a possibility.) However, I
> >> > think this is necessary until the situation stabilizes.
> >>
> >> The name sounds very confusing to me, considering that this seems to be
> >> specific to modular content.
> >
> > That's why I'm asking for comments. I failed to come up with a better
> > name, though.
> >
> > This Group / SIG would provide "classic" maintainership for otherwise
> > semi-abandoned packages that only live on as franken-packages
> > ("modules"), until the remaining shortcomings of modules are overcome,
> > or until they are abandoned.
>
> It's still not clear to me what this group is supposed to do.
>
> Does the group produce modular or non-modular content? What would
> qualify a package for maintenance by this group?
>
> Why don't we need this in a non-module context? Why do modules require
> such a group?
>
This group would be for maintaining packages that are modularized in a
non-module context so that it's actually usable by the broader
ecosystem. Modules are not usable for non-module packages, and third
parties building on top of Fedora can't use modules at all either.
Since module developers don't care about these users, this SIG will.
Fabio, I'm willing to help where I can with this, too.
--
真実はいつも一つ！/ Always, there's only one truth!
___
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives:
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
Re: Proposal: Stewardship Group / SIG for taking care of otherwise "module-only" packages
* Fabio Valentini:
> On Wed, Feb 13, 2019 at 3:23 PM Florian Weimer wrote:
>>
>> * Fabio Valentini:
>>
>> > In the past few weeks, it has come up regularly that future
>> > "module-only" packages are orphaned (and hence will soon be retired),
>> > and nobody stepped up to fix this issue - especially for non-leaf
>> > packages. I don't think fedora as a project has a solution for this
>> > yet.
>> >
>> > I propose to create a "Stewardship" Group / SIG that will take care of
>> > such packages - either until a new main maintainer steps up, or until
>> > modularity matures enough so it won't be necessary anymore. (Or, until
>> > it dies a quiet death, which is always a possibility.) However, I
>> > think this is necessary until the situation stabilizes.
>>
>> The name sounds very confusing to me, considering that this seems to be
>> specific to modular content.
>
> That's why I'm asking for comments. I failed to come up with a better
> name, though.
>
> This Group / SIG would provide "classic" maintainership for otherwise
> semi-abandoned packages that only live on as franken-packages
> ("modules"), until the remaining shortcomings of modules are overcome,
> or until they are abandoned.
It's still not clear to me what this group is supposed to do.
Does the group produce modular or non-modular content? What would
qualify a package for maintenance by this group?
Why don't we need this in a non-module context? Why do modules require
such a group?
Thanks,
Florian
___
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives:
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
Re: Proposal: Stewardship Group / SIG for taking care of otherwise "module-only" packages
On Thu, Feb 14, 2019 at 5:32 AM Tom Hughes wrote: > > On 13/02/2019 12:58, Fabio Valentini wrote: > > On Wed, Feb 13, 2019 at 10:51 AM Tom Hughes wrote: > >> > >> On 13/02/2019 09:48, Neal Gompa wrote: > >>> On Wed, Feb 13, 2019 at 4:34 AM Tom Hughes wrote: > > On 13/02/2019 09:11, Neal Gompa wrote: > > On Wed, Feb 13, 2019 at 4:09 AM Tom Hughes wrote: > > > >> I don't think that second consequence is entirely true. > >> > >> As I understand the the default module stream remains available > >> in the main repo and hence would be installable with things that > >> don't understand modules. There would be no ability to switch to > >> an alternate stream with other tools though. > > > > That's not true. If the modulemd isn't processed, all the RPMs are > > evaluated and the repo looks like a completely conflicting pile of > > nonsense. This is what makes PackageKit and dnfdragora scream. Though > > they don't crash on it anymore, which is a good thing. :) > > Not sure I follow... I don't see anything called modulemd in > the repodata and, for example, pkcon seems to be happy to install > ant on my rawhide vm. > > As I understand it modulemd is something which goes in a distgit > repo to control how modules are built? > >>> > >>> The fedora-modular repo has a modules.yaml.gz appended to it that is > >>> used for shipping module information for package managers to process > >>> for filtering rules. > >> > >> Ahh I have the modular repo disabled, so that's all fine then ;-) > > > > That's exactly my point. > > > > It's fine for now, since the ant hasn't been retired from the master > > branch - yet. > > Once that happens, it will not be available from the regular repos, > > but only from the modular repos. > > My understanding (though it may be wrong...) was that the default > stream would continue to be available from the non-module Everything > repo. > Nope. We currently lack the tooling to be able to do that. -- 真実はいつも一つ！/ Always, there's only one truth! ___ devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
Re: Proposal: Stewardship Group / SIG for taking care of otherwise "module-only" packages
On Wednesday, 13 February 2019 at 15:59, Ron Yorston wrote: [...] > Why would a maintainer drop support for the regular package after > they've copied it into a module (or modules)? If, as Neal says, > "module-only" packages can't be used as build dependencies for > regular packages their package is now useless to any developer who > isn't using modules. > > I'm not expecting an answer from Emmanuel. It would, though, be > interesting to hear from the maintainers of the orphaned packages. > > Why? Why did you do that? This was explained already: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org/message/YFUXS7ZX6UDEMEKJWONKFMVDTSBABZID/ Regards, Dominik -- Fedora https://getfedora.org | RPM Fusion http://rpmfusion.org There should be a science of discontent. People need hard times and oppression to develop psychic muscles. -- from "Collected Sayings of Muad'Dib" by the Princess Irulan ___ devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
Re: Proposal: Stewardship Group / SIG for taking care of otherwise "module-only" packages
> Fedora Legacy? Please don't call the current way of doing things legacy until modularity shows some maturity. For now it smells like time-to-market-driven protoduction [1] that is still missing crucial core functionality to work end-to-end. Dridi [1] prototype deployed to production ___ devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
Re: Proposal: Stewardship Group / SIG for taking care of otherwise "module-only" packages
On Wed, Feb 13, 2019 at 03:32:55PM +0100, Fabio Valentini wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 13, 2019 at 3:23 PM Florian Weimer wrote:
> >
> > * Fabio Valentini:
> >
> > > In the past few weeks, it has come up regularly that future
> > > "module-only" packages are orphaned (and hence will soon be retired),
> > > and nobody stepped up to fix this issue - especially for non-leaf
> > > packages. I don't think fedora as a project has a solution for this
> > > yet.
> > >
> > > I propose to create a "Stewardship" Group / SIG that will take care of
> > > such packages - either until a new main maintainer steps up, or until
> > > modularity matures enough so it won't be necessary anymore. (Or, until
> > > it dies a quiet death, which is always a possibility.) However, I
> > > think this is necessary until the situation stabilizes.
> >
> > The name sounds very confusing to me, considering that this seems to be
> > specific to modular content.
>
> That's why I'm asking for comments. I failed to come up with a better
> name, though.
>
> This Group / SIG would provide "classic" maintainership for otherwise
> semi-abandoned packages that only live on as franken-packages
> ("modules"), until the remaining shortcomings of modules are overcome,
> or until they are abandoned.
>
> But neither "Nostalgia SIG", "Classic Packaging SIG", "Stewardship
> SIG", nor "Package Foster Care SIG" names describe this situation
> well, either.
> At this point, my English / foreign language skills fail me. Better
> suggestions are welcome :)
Fedora Legacy?
___
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives:
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
Re: Proposal: Stewardship Group / SIG for taking care of otherwise "module-only" packages
On 13. 02. 19 15:32, Fabio Valentini wrote:
On Wed, Feb 13, 2019 at 3:23 PM Florian Weimer wrote:
* Fabio Valentini:
In the past few weeks, it has come up regularly that future
"module-only" packages are orphaned (and hence will soon be retired),
and nobody stepped up to fix this issue - especially for non-leaf
packages. I don't think fedora as a project has a solution for this
yet.
I propose to create a "Stewardship" Group / SIG that will take care of
such packages - either until a new main maintainer steps up, or until
modularity matures enough so it won't be necessary anymore. (Or, until
it dies a quiet death, which is always a possibility.) However, I
think this is necessary until the situation stabilizes.
The name sounds very confusing to me, considering that this seems to be
specific to modular content.
That's why I'm asking for comments. I failed to come up with a better
name, though.
This Group / SIG would provide "classic" maintainership for otherwise
semi-abandoned packages that only live on as franken-packages
("modules"), until the remaining shortcomings of modules are overcome,
or until they are abandoned.
But neither "Nostalgia SIG", "Classic Packaging SIG", "Stewardship
SIG", nor "Package Foster Care SIG" names describe this situation
well, either.
At this point, my English / foreign language skills fail me. Better
suggestions are welcome :)
Clusterfuck Prevention SIG?
--
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://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives:
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
Re: Proposal: Stewardship Group / SIG for taking care of otherwise "module-only" packages
Emmanuel Seyman wrote: >* Ron Yorston [13/02/2019 08:45] : >> If so, why would they do that? Why would they *not* want their package >> to be available as a regular package? It seems counterproductive for >> them to downgrade their package to this second-class status. > >The goal, IIUC (and I'm not at sure that I do), is to for each module to be >able to have its own lifecycle, seperate from the lifecycle of the >distribution. Sure, that's my (possibly faulty) understanding too. But it doesn't answer my question. Why would a maintainer drop support for the regular package after they've copied it into a module (or modules)? If, as Neal says, "module-only" packages can't be used as build dependencies for regular packages their package is now useless to any developer who isn't using modules. I'm not expecting an answer from Emmanuel. It would, though, be interesting to hear from the maintainers of the orphaned packages. Why? Why did you do that? Ron ___ devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
Re: Proposal: Stewardship Group / SIG for taking care of otherwise "module-only" packages
On Wed, Feb 13, 2019 at 3:23 PM Florian Weimer wrote:
>
> * Fabio Valentini:
>
> > In the past few weeks, it has come up regularly that future
> > "module-only" packages are orphaned (and hence will soon be retired),
> > and nobody stepped up to fix this issue - especially for non-leaf
> > packages. I don't think fedora as a project has a solution for this
> > yet.
> >
> > I propose to create a "Stewardship" Group / SIG that will take care of
> > such packages - either until a new main maintainer steps up, or until
> > modularity matures enough so it won't be necessary anymore. (Or, until
> > it dies a quiet death, which is always a possibility.) However, I
> > think this is necessary until the situation stabilizes.
>
> The name sounds very confusing to me, considering that this seems to be
> specific to modular content.
That's why I'm asking for comments. I failed to come up with a better
name, though.
This Group / SIG would provide "classic" maintainership for otherwise
semi-abandoned packages that only live on as franken-packages
("modules"), until the remaining shortcomings of modules are overcome,
or until they are abandoned.
But neither "Nostalgia SIG", "Classic Packaging SIG", "Stewardship
SIG", nor "Package Foster Care SIG" names describe this situation
well, either.
At this point, my English / foreign language skills fail me. Better
suggestions are welcome :)
Fabio
> Thanks,
> Florian
___
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives:
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
Re: Proposal: Stewardship Group / SIG for taking care of otherwise "module-only" packages
* Fabio Valentini: > In the past few weeks, it has come up regularly that future > "module-only" packages are orphaned (and hence will soon be retired), > and nobody stepped up to fix this issue - especially for non-leaf > packages. I don't think fedora as a project has a solution for this > yet. > > I propose to create a "Stewardship" Group / SIG that will take care of > such packages - either until a new main maintainer steps up, or until > modularity matures enough so it won't be necessary anymore. (Or, until > it dies a quiet death, which is always a possibility.) However, I > think this is necessary until the situation stabilizes. The name sounds very confusing to me, considering that this seems to be specific to modular content. Thanks, Florian ___ devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
Re: Proposal: Stewardship Group / SIG for taking care of otherwise "module-only" packages
On 13/02/2019 12:58, Fabio Valentini wrote: On Wed, Feb 13, 2019 at 10:51 AM Tom Hughes wrote: On 13/02/2019 09:48, Neal Gompa wrote: On Wed, Feb 13, 2019 at 4:34 AM Tom Hughes wrote: On 13/02/2019 09:11, Neal Gompa wrote: On Wed, Feb 13, 2019 at 4:09 AM Tom Hughes wrote: I don't think that second consequence is entirely true. As I understand the the default module stream remains available in the main repo and hence would be installable with things that don't understand modules. There would be no ability to switch to an alternate stream with other tools though. That's not true. If the modulemd isn't processed, all the RPMs are evaluated and the repo looks like a completely conflicting pile of nonsense. This is what makes PackageKit and dnfdragora scream. Though they don't crash on it anymore, which is a good thing. :) Not sure I follow... I don't see anything called modulemd in the repodata and, for example, pkcon seems to be happy to install ant on my rawhide vm. As I understand it modulemd is something which goes in a distgit repo to control how modules are built? The fedora-modular repo has a modules.yaml.gz appended to it that is used for shipping module information for package managers to process for filtering rules. Ahh I have the modular repo disabled, so that's all fine then ;-) That's exactly my point. It's fine for now, since the ant hasn't been retired from the master branch - yet. Once that happens, it will not be available from the regular repos, but only from the modular repos. My understanding (though it may be wrong...) was that the default stream would continue to be available from the non-module Everything repo. Tom -- Tom Hughes (t...@compton.nu) http://compton.nu/ ___ devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
Re: Proposal: Stewardship Group / SIG for taking care of otherwise "module-only" packages
* Fabio Valentini [13/02/2019 13:58] : > > It's fine for now, since the ant hasn't been retired from the master > branch - yet. > Once that happens, it will not be available from the regular repos, > but only from the modular repos. The issue here is that, if we have someone who can maintain ant, I see no incentive for him/her to doing this under the Stewardship SIG you're proposing rather than the Java SIG which already exists. Emmanuel ___ devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
Re: Proposal: Stewardship Group / SIG for taking care of otherwise "module-only" packages
On Wed, Feb 13, 2019 at 10:51 AM Tom Hughes wrote: > > On 13/02/2019 09:48, Neal Gompa wrote: > > On Wed, Feb 13, 2019 at 4:34 AM Tom Hughes wrote: > >> > >> On 13/02/2019 09:11, Neal Gompa wrote: > >>> On Wed, Feb 13, 2019 at 4:09 AM Tom Hughes wrote: > >>> > I don't think that second consequence is entirely true. > > As I understand the the default module stream remains available > in the main repo and hence would be installable with things that > don't understand modules. There would be no ability to switch to > an alternate stream with other tools though. > >>> > >>> That's not true. If the modulemd isn't processed, all the RPMs are > >>> evaluated and the repo looks like a completely conflicting pile of > >>> nonsense. This is what makes PackageKit and dnfdragora scream. Though > >>> they don't crash on it anymore, which is a good thing. :) > >> > >> Not sure I follow... I don't see anything called modulemd in > >> the repodata and, for example, pkcon seems to be happy to install > >> ant on my rawhide vm. > >> > >> As I understand it modulemd is something which goes in a distgit > >> repo to control how modules are built? > > > > The fedora-modular repo has a modules.yaml.gz appended to it that is > > used for shipping module information for package managers to process > > for filtering rules. > > Ahh I have the modular repo disabled, so that's all fine then ;-) That's exactly my point. It's fine for now, since the ant hasn't been retired from the master branch - yet. Once that happens, it will not be available from the regular repos, but only from the modular repos. Fabio > Tom > > -- > Tom Hughes (t...@compton.nu) > http://compton.nu/ > ___ > devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org > To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org > Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html > 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://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
Re: Proposal: Stewardship Group / SIG for taking care of otherwise "module-only" packages
On 13/02/2019 09:48, Neal Gompa wrote: On Wed, Feb 13, 2019 at 4:34 AM Tom Hughes wrote: On 13/02/2019 09:11, Neal Gompa wrote: On Wed, Feb 13, 2019 at 4:09 AM Tom Hughes wrote: I don't think that second consequence is entirely true. As I understand the the default module stream remains available in the main repo and hence would be installable with things that don't understand modules. There would be no ability to switch to an alternate stream with other tools though. That's not true. If the modulemd isn't processed, all the RPMs are evaluated and the repo looks like a completely conflicting pile of nonsense. This is what makes PackageKit and dnfdragora scream. Though they don't crash on it anymore, which is a good thing. :) Not sure I follow... I don't see anything called modulemd in the repodata and, for example, pkcon seems to be happy to install ant on my rawhide vm. As I understand it modulemd is something which goes in a distgit repo to control how modules are built? The fedora-modular repo has a modules.yaml.gz appended to it that is used for shipping module information for package managers to process for filtering rules. Ahh I have the modular repo disabled, so that's all fine then ;-) Tom -- Tom Hughes (t...@compton.nu) http://compton.nu/ ___ devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
Re: Proposal: Stewardship Group / SIG for taking care of otherwise "module-only" packages
On Wed, Feb 13, 2019 at 4:34 AM Tom Hughes wrote: > > On 13/02/2019 09:11, Neal Gompa wrote: > > On Wed, Feb 13, 2019 at 4:09 AM Tom Hughes wrote: > > > >> I don't think that second consequence is entirely true. > >> > >> As I understand the the default module stream remains available > >> in the main repo and hence would be installable with things that > >> don't understand modules. There would be no ability to switch to > >> an alternate stream with other tools though. > > > > That's not true. If the modulemd isn't processed, all the RPMs are > > evaluated and the repo looks like a completely conflicting pile of > > nonsense. This is what makes PackageKit and dnfdragora scream. Though > > they don't crash on it anymore, which is a good thing. :) > > Not sure I follow... I don't see anything called modulemd in > the repodata and, for example, pkcon seems to be happy to install > ant on my rawhide vm. > > As I understand it modulemd is something which goes in a distgit > repo to control how modules are built? > The fedora-modular repo has a modules.yaml.gz appended to it that is used for shipping module information for package managers to process for filtering rules. -- 真実はいつも一つ！/ Always, there's only one truth! ___ devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
Re: Proposal: Stewardship Group / SIG for taking care of otherwise "module-only" packages
On 13/02/2019 09:11, Neal Gompa wrote: On Wed, Feb 13, 2019 at 4:09 AM Tom Hughes wrote: I don't think that second consequence is entirely true. As I understand the the default module stream remains available in the main repo and hence would be installable with things that don't understand modules. There would be no ability to switch to an alternate stream with other tools though. That's not true. If the modulemd isn't processed, all the RPMs are evaluated and the repo looks like a completely conflicting pile of nonsense. This is what makes PackageKit and dnfdragora scream. Though they don't crash on it anymore, which is a good thing. :) Not sure I follow... I don't see anything called modulemd in the repodata and, for example, pkcon seems to be happy to install ant on my rawhide vm. As I understand it modulemd is something which goes in a distgit repo to control how modules are built? Tom -- Tom Hughes (t...@compton.nu) http://compton.nu/ ___ devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
Re: Proposal: Stewardship Group / SIG for taking care of otherwise "module-only" packages
On Wed, Feb 13, 2019 at 4:09 AM Tom Hughes wrote: > > On 13/02/2019 08:05, Neal Gompa wrote: > > > On Wed, Feb 13, 2019 at 2:58 AM Ron Yorston wrote: > > > >> What is a "module-only" package? > > > > These are packages that move from the main Fedora distribution into > > the addon "fedora-modular" repo that is enabled by default on Fedora > > systems. > > > > There are a couple of consequences of this: > > > > * They are no longer available for regular packages to use as build > > dependencies > > * Only DNF (the CLI tool) can manage them. PackageKit and dnfdragora > > can't do anything with them yet. > > I don't think that second consequence is entirely true. > > As I understand the the default module stream remains available > in the main repo and hence would be installable with things that > don't understand modules. There would be no ability to switch to > an alternate stream with other tools though. > That's not true. If the modulemd isn't processed, all the RPMs are evaluated and the repo looks like a completely conflicting pile of nonsense. This is what makes PackageKit and dnfdragora scream. Though they don't crash on it anymore, which is a good thing. :) -- 真実はいつも一つ！/ Always, there's only one truth! ___ devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
Re: Proposal: Stewardship Group / SIG for taking care of otherwise "module-only" packages
On 13/02/2019 08:05, Neal Gompa wrote: On Wed, Feb 13, 2019 at 2:58 AM Ron Yorston wrote: What is a "module-only" package? These are packages that move from the main Fedora distribution into the addon "fedora-modular" repo that is enabled by default on Fedora systems. There are a couple of consequences of this: * They are no longer available for regular packages to use as build dependencies * Only DNF (the CLI tool) can manage them. PackageKit and dnfdragora can't do anything with them yet. I don't think that second consequence is entirely true. As I understand the the default module stream remains available in the main repo and hence would be installable with things that don't understand modules. There would be no ability to switch to an alternate stream with other tools though. Tom -- Tom Hughes (t...@compton.nu) http://compton.nu/ ___ devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
Re: Proposal: Stewardship Group / SIG for taking care of otherwise "module-only" packages
* Ron Yorston [13/02/2019 08:45] : > > What causes a package to move? I guess it doesn't just happen > spontaneously, so presumably it's a choice the maintainer makes. It isn't really a move per se. A regular package can be copied into a module. If the package is then orphaned/retired, it ceases to be a regular package but stays part of a module. > If so, why would they do that? Why would they *not* want their package > to be available as a regular package? It seems counterproductive for > them to downgrade their package to this second-class status. The goal, IIUC (and I'm not at sure that I do), is to for each module to be able to have its own lifecycle, seperate from the lifecycle of the distribution. Emmanuel ___ devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
Re: Proposal: Stewardship Group / SIG for taking care of otherwise "module-only" packages
Neal Gompa wrote: >Ron Yorston wrote: >> What is a "module-only" package? > >These are packages that move from the main Fedora distribution into >the addon "fedora-modular" repo that is enabled by default on Fedora >systems. What causes a package to move? I guess it doesn't just happen spontaneously, so presumably it's a choice the maintainer makes. If so, why would they do that? Why would they *not* want their package to be available as a regular package? It seems counterproductive for them to downgrade their package to this second-class status. Ron ___ devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
Re: Proposal: Stewardship Group / SIG for taking care of otherwise "module-only" packages
On Wed, Feb 13, 2019 at 2:58 AM Ron Yorston wrote: > > Fabio Valentini wrote: > >In the past few weeks, it has come up regularly that future > >"module-only" packages are orphaned (and hence will soon be retired), > >and nobody stepped up to fix this issue - especially for non-leaf > >packages. I don't think fedora as a project has a solution for this > >yet. > > What is a "module-only" package? > These are packages that move from the main Fedora distribution into the addon "fedora-modular" repo that is enabled by default on Fedora systems. There are a couple of consequences of this: * They are no longer available for regular packages to use as build dependencies * Only DNF (the CLI tool) can manage them. PackageKit and dnfdragora can't do anything with them yet. -- 真実はいつも一つ！/ Always, there's only one truth! ___ devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
Re: Proposal: Stewardship Group / SIG for taking care of otherwise "module-only" packages
Fabio Valentini wrote: >In the past few weeks, it has come up regularly that future >"module-only" packages are orphaned (and hence will soon be retired), >and nobody stepped up to fix this issue - especially for non-leaf >packages. I don't think fedora as a project has a solution for this >yet. What is a "module-only" package? Ron ___ devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
Re: Proposal: Stewardship Group / SIG for taking care of otherwise "module-only" packages
On Tue, Feb 12, 2019 at 12:15 PM Fabio Valentini wrote: > On Tue, Feb 12, 2019 at 12:09 PM Adam Samalik wrote: > > > > The Modularity Team works on enabling default modules to be present in > the traditional buildroot. The work is tracked here: > https://tree.taiga.io/project/modularity-wg/epic/12 > > > > We would love to contributions towards that. I'm willing to mentor > anyone interested regarding Modularity. However, we might be quite close > now. And I believe this example raises the priority quite a bit, right? (cc > Stephen & Petr) > > The difference being: I'm suggesting something that can definitely be > done now (maybe even today), and not about "maybe soon"s. > > I don't want to sound disrespectful, and I see that a lot of work is > being poured into the Modularity effort. > However, I don't want to see fedora broken as a result of unfinished > solutions, where there's not even a visible agreement on the way > forward. > Ah, I haven't taken that as a disrespectful or anything! :-) Actually, thanks for stepping up and offering help. Definitely agree that this might be a much faster temporary workaround before the proper fix comes. I just wanted to make sure that people understand that it's something we're working on. > Fabio > > > On Tue, Feb 12, 2019 at 11:56 AM Fabio Valentini > wrote: > >> > >> Hi everybody, > >> > >> In the past few weeks, it has come up regularly that future > >> "module-only" packages are orphaned (and hence will soon be retired), > >> and nobody stepped up to fix this issue - especially for non-leaf > >> packages. I don't think fedora as a project has a solution for this > >> yet. > >> > >> I propose to create a "Stewardship" Group / SIG that will take care of > >> such packages - either until a new main maintainer steps up, or until > >> modularity matures enough so it won't be necessary anymore. (Or, until > >> it dies a quiet death, which is always a possibility.) However, I > >> think this is necessary until the situation stabilizes. > >> > >> Comments and future contributors are very welcome. > >> > >> Fabio > >> ___ > >> devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org > >> To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org > >> Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html > >> List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines > >> List Archives: > https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org > > > > > > > > -- > > > > Adam Šamalík > > --- > > Software Engineer > > Red Hat > > ___ > > devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org > > To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org > > Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html > > 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://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html > List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines > List Archives: > https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org > -- Adam Šamalík --- Software Engineer Red Hat ___ devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
Re: Proposal: Stewardship Group / SIG for taking care of otherwise "module-only" packages
On Tue, Feb 12, 2019 at 12:09 PM Adam Samalik wrote: > > The Modularity Team works on enabling default modules to be present in the > traditional buildroot. The work is tracked here: > https://tree.taiga.io/project/modularity-wg/epic/12 > > We would love to contributions towards that. I'm willing to mentor anyone > interested regarding Modularity. However, we might be quite close now. And I > believe this example raises the priority quite a bit, right? (cc Stephen & > Petr) The difference being: I'm suggesting something that can definitely be done now (maybe even today), and not about "maybe soon"s. I don't want to sound disrespectful, and I see that a lot of work is being poured into the Modularity effort. However, I don't want to see fedora broken as a result of unfinished solutions, where there's not even a visible agreement on the way forward. Fabio > On Tue, Feb 12, 2019 at 11:56 AM Fabio Valentini wrote: >> >> Hi everybody, >> >> In the past few weeks, it has come up regularly that future >> "module-only" packages are orphaned (and hence will soon be retired), >> and nobody stepped up to fix this issue - especially for non-leaf >> packages. I don't think fedora as a project has a solution for this >> yet. >> >> I propose to create a "Stewardship" Group / SIG that will take care of >> such packages - either until a new main maintainer steps up, or until >> modularity matures enough so it won't be necessary anymore. (Or, until >> it dies a quiet death, which is always a possibility.) However, I >> think this is necessary until the situation stabilizes. >> >> Comments and future contributors are very welcome. >> >> Fabio >> ___ >> devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org >> To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org >> Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html >> List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines >> List Archives: >> https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org > > > > -- > > Adam Šamalík > --- > Software Engineer > Red Hat > ___ > devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org > To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org > Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html > 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://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
Re: Proposal: Stewardship Group / SIG for taking care of otherwise "module-only" packages
The Modularity Team works on enabling default modules to be present in the traditional buildroot. The work is tracked here: https://tree.taiga.io/project/modularity-wg/epic/12 We would love to contributions towards that. I'm willing to mentor anyone interested regarding Modularity. However, we might be quite close now. And I believe this example raises the priority quite a bit, right? (cc Stephen & Petr) On Tue, Feb 12, 2019 at 11:56 AM Fabio Valentini wrote: > Hi everybody, > > In the past few weeks, it has come up regularly that future > "module-only" packages are orphaned (and hence will soon be retired), > and nobody stepped up to fix this issue - especially for non-leaf > packages. I don't think fedora as a project has a solution for this > yet. > > I propose to create a "Stewardship" Group / SIG that will take care of > such packages - either until a new main maintainer steps up, or until > modularity matures enough so it won't be necessary anymore. (Or, until > it dies a quiet death, which is always a possibility.) However, I > think this is necessary until the situation stabilizes. > > Comments and future contributors are very welcome. > > Fabio > ___ > devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org > To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org > Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html > List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines > List Archives: > https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org > -- Adam Šamalík --- Software Engineer Red Hat ___ devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
