Re: spin-kickstarts package
On Thu, 2022-11-24 at 13:48 -0800, Kevin Fenzi wrote: > On Wed, Nov 23, 2022 at 09:33:48PM -0500, Neal Gompa wrote: > > > > Is there a reason we couldn't just automatically update the package > > once we're in freeze so that it has what we're shipping? By the time > > we're down to the wire for final freeze, we're not changing the > > kickstarts that often. > > Thats what we used to do, but it has a bunch of process overhead. > > Someone has to file a blocker bug on it, it gets voted on and approved, > then the package update has to be made, submitted, karma and request to > go stable. > > A few times in the past we _have_ made kickstart changes during rc's, > then it means we have to update the package and do all the overhead > again. > > I'm just not sure what utility the package has, wouldn't everyone just > get it from git and make sure they have the latest? Yes, I'm +1 to just dropping the package. I see it as kind of a hangover from the old idea that the release tree itself should contain everything necessary to reproduce it, but we've never really completely honored that, so it doesn't seem worth worrying about. -- Adam Williamson Fedora QA IRC: adamw | Twitter: adamw_ha https://www.happyassassin.net ___ devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org Do not reply to spam, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue
Re: spin-kickstarts package
On Wed, Nov 23, 2022 at 09:33:48PM -0500, Neal Gompa wrote: > > Is there a reason we couldn't just automatically update the package > once we're in freeze so that it has what we're shipping? By the time > we're down to the wire for final freeze, we're not changing the > kickstarts that often. Thats what we used to do, but it has a bunch of process overhead. Someone has to file a blocker bug on it, it gets voted on and approved, then the package update has to be made, submitted, karma and request to go stable. A few times in the past we _have_ made kickstart changes during rc's, then it means we have to update the package and do all the overhead again. I'm just not sure what utility the package has, wouldn't everyone just get it from git and make sure they have the latest? kevin signature.asc Description: PGP signature ___ devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org Do not reply to spam, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue
Re: spin-kickstarts package
Neal Gompa a écrit : > On Wed, Nov 23, 2022 at 2:52 PM Kevin Fenzi wrote: > > > > Greetings everyone. > > > > So, we used to have a release requirement that we package up and release > > along side the release a spin-kickstarts rpm package with the current > > kickstarts used for that release. > > > > This resulted in a bunch of last minute scrambling and blockers, and > > even then, we often pushed fixes after release and people would get the > > out of date one in the package and get confused. > > > > So, we changed that requirement, but then since there was no > > requirement, we haven't really been updating the rpm much. > > (see https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2144207 ) > > > > I'd like to just retire the rpm package and point folks to the git repo. > > I think this will get people up to date versions of things, > > and avoid pointlessly updating a package. > > > > Anyone have any arguments to save the rpm version? > > Or shall I just retire it/update docs? > > > > Is there a reason we couldn't just automatically update the package > once we're in freeze so that it has what we're shipping? By the time > we're down to the wire for final freeze, we're not changing the > kickstarts that often. > Yes, Freeze exception, forever. I'm currently using that package especially, using symlinks to officials kickstarts in that package. Everything will go to trash now... :( ( https://fedorapeople.org/cgit/fantom/public_git/im-kickstarts.git/tree/ ) -- GnuPG: AE157E0B29F0BEF2 at keys.openpgp.org CA Cert: https://dl.casperlefantom.net/pub/ssl/root.der Jabber/XMPP Messaging: cas...@casperlefantom.net signature.asc Description: PGP signature ___ devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org Do not reply to spam, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue
Re: spin-kickstarts package
On Wed, Nov 23, 2022 at 2:52 PM Kevin Fenzi wrote: > > Greetings everyone. > > So, we used to have a release requirement that we package up and release > along side the release a spin-kickstarts rpm package with the current > kickstarts used for that release. > > This resulted in a bunch of last minute scrambling and blockers, and > even then, we often pushed fixes after release and people would get the > out of date one in the package and get confused. > > So, we changed that requirement, but then since there was no > requirement, we haven't really been updating the rpm much. > (see https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2144207 ) > > I'd like to just retire the rpm package and point folks to the git repo. > I think this will get people up to date versions of things, > and avoid pointlessly updating a package. > > Anyone have any arguments to save the rpm version? > Or shall I just retire it/update docs? > Is there a reason we couldn't just automatically update the package once we're in freeze so that it has what we're shipping? By the time we're down to the wire for final freeze, we're not changing the kickstarts that often. -- 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://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org Do not reply to spam, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue
spin-kickstarts package
Greetings everyone. So, we used to have a release requirement that we package up and release along side the release a spin-kickstarts rpm package with the current kickstarts used for that release. This resulted in a bunch of last minute scrambling and blockers, and even then, we often pushed fixes after release and people would get the out of date one in the package and get confused. So, we changed that requirement, but then since there was no requirement, we haven't really been updating the rpm much. (see https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2144207 ) I'd like to just retire the rpm package and point folks to the git repo. I think this will get people up to date versions of things, and avoid pointlessly updating a package. Anyone have any arguments to save the rpm version? Or shall I just retire it/update docs? kevin signature.asc Description: PGP signature ___ devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org Do not reply to spam, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue
spin-kickstarts package comaintainer
Hello, I would like comaintain spin-kickstarts package with actual comaintainers just to update the package more regulary. regards Matthieu Saulnier -- Pour encrypter vos emails Clef GPG ID : 83288189 @ hkp://pgp.mit.edu:11371 Empreinte : CC26 692F 5205 AC8F 7912 7783 D7A7 F4C5 8328 8189 pgpV5zSpoanUO.pgp Description: PGP signature -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: spin-kickstarts package comaintainer
On Sat, Dec 22, 2012 at 16:14:10 +0100, Casper fan...@fedoraproject.org wrote: Hello, I would like comaintain spin-kickstarts package with actual comaintainers just to update the package more regulary. kanarip is currently the only one with approve ACLs on that package. Note that you need to do updates in the spin-kickstarts repo and save a new archive file as part of updating the package. There is documentation on this at https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Rebuilding_Spins_Packages . -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
