Re: /usrmove? - about the future
On 2/24/12 12:10 PM, Ville Skyttä wrote: On 2012-02-23 20:06, Jesse Keating wrote: Could you help me figure out why path completion with ~/ isn't working in fedpkg, but with full paths it is? I assume there is something wrong in the (contributed) bash completion file. https://fedorahosted.org/fedpkg/ticket/3 Thanks. That just further confirms that bash completion syntax is strange and complicated, and I know very little about it :) -- Jesse Keating Fedora -- Freedom² is a feature! -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: /usrmove? - about the future
On 02/21/2012 06:31 PM, Doug Ledford wrote: it honors all the LSB dependency tags in the SysV init scripts, and my experience is that this is specifically where a number of the emulation startup bugs exists. What do you mean? That the LSB headers are incorrect too often? It's a problem, but that at least should not be too hard to fix. Furthermore, the design feature of not stopping anything that it didn't start seems to be more of a bug than a feature to me...it means that if an admin starts a service manually for whatever reason (debugging, want to see output, the systemd unit file won't allow the necessary interactive username and password prompt, etc.), then it won't get stopped properly on shutdown. Processes that are still around after stopping the services systemd knows about will get a SIGTERM and after 5 seconds a SIGKILL if they refuse to die. That is not a feature, that's just dumb. I disagree. Michal -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: /usrmove? - about the future
On 2/19/12 3:43 AM, Ville Skyttä wrote: On 2012-02-18 20:26, Rahul Sundaram wrote: On 02/18/2012 11:05 PM, Ville Skyttä wrote: You can get the completion to work according to that preference with for example yum install ./fooTAB - anything that looks like a filesystem path triggers filename-only completion, otherwise we do both filenames and repos. That's atleast understandable but there seems to be a big slowdown when doing rpmlint tab completion as well. Not sure why. rpmlint footab is much slower with bash-completion installed. The same thing applies to rpmlint. Anything that looks like a file path gets treated as a file path and is quick; otherwise we need to look up both files and rpmdb, and even though it has been getting better, the latter unfortunately isn't that quick. Could you help me figure out why path completion with ~/ isn't working in fedpkg, but with full paths it is? I assume there is something wrong in the (contributed) bash completion file. https://fedorahosted.org/fedpkg/browser/src/fedpkg.bash -- Help me fight child abuse: http://tinyurl.com/jlkcourage - jlk -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: /usrmove? - about the future
- Original Message - On 02/10/2012 06:32 PM, Adam Williamson wrote: systemd was explicitly written to be 100% sysv-compatible Mostly compatible, but not 100%. http://www.freedesktop.org/wiki/Software/systemd/Incompatibilities You're both joking, right? That isn't 100% compatible, it isn't mostly compatible, it's barely workable emulation that only works in generic cases and fails in all unusual circumstances that SysV used to work in, according to the page above anyway. And that's been my experience with it too. Plus it says that it honors all the LSB dependency tags in the SysV init scripts, and my experience is that this is specifically where a number of the emulation startup bugs exists. Furthermore, the design feature of not stopping anything that it didn't start seems to be more of a bug than a feature to me...it means that if an admin starts a service manually for whatever reason (debugging, want to see output, the systemd unit file won't allow the necessary interactive username and password prompt, etc.), then it won't get stopped properly on shutdown. That is not a feature, that's just dumb. -- Doug Ledford dledf...@redhat.com GPG KeyID: 0E572FDD http://people.redhat.com/dledford -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: /usrmove? - about the future
On Tue, 2012-02-21 at 12:31 -0500, Doug Ledford wrote: - Original Message - On 02/10/2012 06:32 PM, Adam Williamson wrote: systemd was explicitly written to be 100% sysv-compatible Mostly compatible, but not 100%. http://www.freedesktop.org/wiki/Software/systemd/Incompatibilities You're both joking, right? That isn't 100% compatible, it isn't mostly compatible, it's barely workable emulation that only works in generic cases and fails in all unusual circumstances that SysV used to work in, according to the page above anyway. And that's been my experience with it too. Plus it says that it honors all the LSB dependency tags in the SysV init scripts, and my experience is that this is specifically where a number of the emulation startup bugs exists. Furthermore, the design feature of not stopping anything that it didn't start seems to be more of a bug than a feature to me...it means that if an admin starts a service manually for whatever reason (debugging, want to see output, the systemd unit file won't allow the necessary interactive username and password prompt, etc.), then it won't get stopped properly on shutdown. That is not a feature, that's just dumb. Joking, no. Rather a lot of context was lost in the above. I was replying to Harald Reindl (I know, I know, that's always a mistake), who has often asserted that the systemd migration is 'broken by design' because we did not attempt to migrate every single sysv service in the entire distro to be systemd native within the timeframe of a single release. I pointed out that the migration process was always intended to be gradual, and systemd was specifically written with sysv compatibility in order to allow this. I agree that '100% sysv-compatible' was an inaccurate description, but chopping that statement out from the context of the discussion in which I wrote it makes it look much more egregiously so than it actually was. -- Adam Williamson Fedora QA Community Monkey IRC: adamw | Twitter: AdamW_Fedora | identi.ca: adamwfedora http://www.happyassassin.net -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: /usrmove? - about the future
On 2012-02-18 20:26, Rahul Sundaram wrote: On 02/18/2012 11:05 PM, Ville Skyttä wrote: You can get the completion to work according to that preference with for example yum install ./fooTAB - anything that looks like a filesystem path triggers filename-only completion, otherwise we do both filenames and repos. That's atleast understandable but there seems to be a big slowdown when doing rpmlint tab completion as well. Not sure why. rpmlint foo tab is much slower with bash-completion installed. The same thing applies to rpmlint. Anything that looks like a file path gets treated as a file path and is quick; otherwise we need to look up both files and rpmdb, and even though it has been getting better, the latter unfortunately isn't that quick. -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: /usrmove? - about the future
On 2012-02-16 05:34, Stephen John Smoogen wrote: 2) The bash-completions add-on. Which does all kinds of wonderful things which when they work is really nice.. it will autocomplete hostnames if you type ssh ftab, it will autocomplete depending on the command you typed the most obvious items... etc etc. It also can really really slow you down at times or cause issues with just normal bash completion. A bad autocomplete can cause you to sit 3-4 minutes as DNS or other things time out. People tend to bring this up every now and then but fail to be specific exactly what happened so it's quite difficult for anyone to fix things. Nevertheless, a lot of things have improved in bash-completion recently and semi-recently (especially the dynamically loaded version in F-17+), including suppression of unnecessary network accesses by default. But some network accesses intentionally remain, for example remote filename completion for scp and rsync. -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: /usrmove? - about the future
On 02/18/2012 02:27 PM, Ville Skyttä wrote: People tend to bring this up every now and then but fail to be specific exactly what happened so it's quite difficult for anyone to fix things. I just installed it for sometime and found that yum install footab looks up the online repositories instead of completing the filename in my local path. I would prefer local completion first. Rahul -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: /usrmove? - about the future
On 2012-02-18 18:27, Rahul Sundaram wrote: On 02/18/2012 02:27 PM, Ville Skyttä wrote: People tend to bring this up every now and then but fail to be specific exactly what happened so it's quite difficult for anyone to fix things. I just installed it for sometime and found that yum install footab looks up the online repositories instead of completing the filename in my local path. I would prefer local completion first. You can get the completion to work according to that preference with for example yum install ./fooTAB - anything that looks like a filesystem path triggers filename-only completion, otherwise we do both filenames and repos. -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: /usrmove? - about the future
On 02/18/2012 11:05 PM, Ville Skyttä wrote: You can get the completion to work according to that preference with for example yum install ./fooTAB - anything that looks like a filesystem path triggers filename-only completion, otherwise we do both filenames and repos. That's atleast understandable but there seems to be a big slowdown when doing rpmlint tab completion as well. Not sure why. rpmlint foo tab is much slower with bash-completion installed. Rahul -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: /usrmove? - about the future
On Thu, 2012-02-16 at 17:49 +, Jóhann B. Guðmundsson wrote: On 02/16/2012 05:33 PM, Jóhann B. Guðmundsson wrote: complete -r if memory serves me correct then again I'm getting old and fragile... set disable-completion on into /etc/inputrc or ~/.inputr to disable it across logout/reboots This disables normal non-programmable tab-completion for me. Also, if you want the (other) default settings, you need to $include /etc/inputrc on the first line of ~/.inputrc. It would really help if we shipped documentation for this file :-). Nils -- Nils Philippsen Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase Red Hat a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty n...@redhat.com nor Safety. -- Benjamin Franklin, 1759 PGP fingerprint: C4A8 9474 5C4C ADE3 2B8F 656D 47D8 9B65 6951 3011 -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: /usrmove? - about the future
On Fri, Feb 17, 2012 at 13:54, Nils Philippsen n...@redhat.com wrote: This disables normal non-programmable tab-completion for me. Also, if you want the (other) default settings, you need to $include /etc/inputrc on the first line of ~/.inputrc. It would really help if we shipped documentation for this file :-). man readline. man bash has a bit of information from a bash perspective too. -- There are 10 kinds of people in the world: Those who understand binary and those who don't... -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: /usrmove? - about the future
Matthew Garrett wrote: On Wed, Feb 15, 2012 at 07:23:24PM -0500, Steve Clark wrote: On 02/15/2012 05:19 PM, mike cloaked wrote: I use bash completion all the time every single day - I guess I have become a corner case! No you haven't. All the developers I have worked with since the early nineties use it all the time every day. We would be lost without it. You may have been working with them since the earliy nineties, but the feature was only introduced in 2.04 in 2000. Programmable completion is fairly modern compared to the rest of bash... That was one of the reasons I switched to zsh. It had far superior completion back then. Bash has closed the gap, since. -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: /usrmove? - about the future
- Original Message - From: Steve Clark scl...@netwolves.com To: Development discussions related to Fedora devel@lists.fedoraproject.org Sent: Thursday, February 16, 2012 6:47:03 AM Subject: Re: /usrmove? - about the future On 02/15/2012 10:34 PM, Matthew Garrett wrote: On Wed, Feb 15, 2012 at 07:23:24PM -0500, Steve Clark wrote: On 02/15/2012 05:19 PM, mike cloaked wrote: I use bash completion all the time every single day - I guess I have become a corner case! No you haven't. All the developers I have worked with since the early nineties use it all the time every day. We would be lost without it. You may have been working with them since the earliy nineties, but the feature was only introduced in 2.04 in 2000. Programmable completion is fairly modern compared to the rest of bash... bash 1.14 used readline which had completions. Circa 1994. Thank you very much. And yet still, has nothing at all to do with the bash-completion package being discussed here. Steve -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: /usrmove? - about the future
On 02/16/2012 08:12 AM, Steve Gordon wrote: - Original Message - From: Steve Clarkscl...@netwolves.com To: Development discussions related to Fedoradevel@lists.fedoraproject.org Sent: Thursday, February 16, 2012 6:47:03 AM Subject: Re: /usrmove? - about the future On 02/15/2012 10:34 PM, Matthew Garrett wrote: On Wed, Feb 15, 2012 at 07:23:24PM -0500, Steve Clark wrote: On 02/15/2012 05:19 PM, mike cloaked wrote: I use bash completion all the time every single day - I guess I have become a corner case! No you haven't. All the developers I have worked with since the early nineties use it all the time every day. We would be lost without it. You may have been working with them since the earliy nineties, but the feature was only introduced in 2.04 in 2000. Programmable completion is fairly modern compared to the rest of bash... bash 1.14 used readline which had completions. Circa 1994. Thank you very much. And yet still, has nothing at all to do with the bash-completion package being discussed here. Steve Oops - sorry for my confusion. -- Stephen Clark *NetWolves* Director of Technology Phone: 813-579-3200 Fax: 813-882-0209 Email: steve.cl...@netwolves.com http://www.netwolves.com -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: /usrmove? - about the future
On Thu, Feb 16, 2012 at 03:34, Stephen John Smoogen smo...@gmail.com wrote: A bad autocomplete can cause you to sit 3-4 minutes as DNS or other things time out. Ctrl+C will cancel the command and the completion with it. It's not ideal if you are typing a long command but it certainly avoids waiting 3-4 minutes... -- There are 10 kinds of people in the world: Those who understand binary and those who don't... -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: /usrmove? - about the future
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On 02/16/2012 09:59 AM, John5342 wrote: On Thu, Feb 16, 2012 at 03:34, Stephen John Smoogen smo...@gmail.com wrote: A bad autocomplete can cause you to sit 3-4 minutes as DNS or other things time out. Ctrl+C will cancel the command and the completion with it. It's not ideal if you are typing a long command but it certainly avoids waiting 3-4 minutes... Is there a way to disable this. Basically i don't want any bash completion to use the network. -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.12 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/ iEYEARECAAYFAk89PDQACgkQrlYvE4MpobM4wACgkpow10x1tiC+xBarTgXvcmAn IxcAnjEd8WgkDTZfeBTsC1RFAnTbb9dM =lEP8 -END PGP SIGNATURE- -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: /usrmove? - about the future
On 02/16/2012 05:26 PM, Daniel J Walsh wrote: Is there a way to disable this. Basically i don't want any bash completion to use the network. complete -r if memory serves me correct then again I'm getting old and fragile... JBG -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: /usrmove? - about the future
On 02/16/2012 05:33 PM, Jóhann B. Guðmundsson wrote: complete -r if memory serves me correct then again I'm getting old and fragile... set disable-completion on into /etc/inputrc or ~/.inputr to disable it across logout/reboots JBG -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: /usrmove? - about the future
Am 14.02.2012 19:16, schrieb Jóhann B. Guðmundsson: On 02/14/2012 10:23 AM, Alfredo Ferrari wrote: Do the systemd maintainers ever read bug reports BTW? Why do you think otherwise? Not only read them but fix them as well. To give you some stats There are currently 96 Open bugs against systemd and 536 that have been closed at the time of this writing... In F15 which should be the most buggied release since it was the initial release into the distribution only has 11 bugs will systemctl restart ever has working autocompletion for RUNNING services? it is a littl ebit odd the it does show STOPPED services because restart makes ususally more sense for running ones... signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: /usrmove? - about the future
On 02/15/2012 10:47 AM, Reindl Harald wrote:
Am 14.02.2012 19:16, schrieb Jóhann B. Guðmundsson:
On 02/14/2012 10:23 AM, Alfredo Ferrari wrote:
Do the systemd maintainers ever read bug reports BTW?
Why do you think otherwise?
Not only read them but fix them as well.
To give you some stats
There are currently 96 Open bugs against systemd and 536 that have been closed
at the time of this writing...
In F15 which should be the most buggied release since it was the initial
release into the distribution only has 11
bugs
will systemctl restart ever has working autocompletion for RUNNING services?
it is a littl ebit odd the it does show STOPPED services because
restart makes ususally more sense for running ones...
You could edit /etc/bash_completion.d/systemd-bash-completion.sh to do
this for you.
Replace the $( __get_all_units | grep ...)) with $( __get_active_units ) )
.
.
.
elif __contains_word $verb ${VERBS[RESTARTABLE_UNITS]}; then
comps=$( __filter_units_by_property CanStart yes \
$( __get_all_units | grep -Ev
'\.(device|snapshot|socket|timer)$' ))
.
.
.
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: /usrmove? - about the future
Am 15.02.2012 10:53, schrieb Brendan Jones: On 02/15/2012 10:47 AM, Reindl Harald wrote: Am 14.02.2012 19:16, schrieb Jóhann B. Guðmundsson: On 02/14/2012 10:23 AM, Alfredo Ferrari wrote: Do the systemd maintainers ever read bug reports BTW? Why do you think otherwise? Not only read them but fix them as well. To give you some stats There are currently 96 Open bugs against systemd and 536 that have been closed at the time of this writing... In F15 which should be the most buggied release since it was the initial release into the distribution only has 11 bugs will systemctl restart ever has working autocompletion for RUNNING services? it is a littl ebit odd the it does show STOPPED services because restart makes ususally more sense for running ones... You could edit /etc/bash_completion.d/systemd-bash-completion.sh to do this for you. i could setup also linux from scratch that is not the point the question is: do systemd-developers never use TAB and type all their stuff completly like on a windows box that they do not recognize this at the first place? this is a category of bug where i always expect that no report is needed since every developer using his software is expected to take notice of this signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: /usrmove? - about the future
On 02/15/2012 11:55 AM, Reindl Harald wrote: Am 15.02.2012 10:53, schrieb Brendan Jones: On 02/15/2012 10:47 AM, Reindl Harald wrote: Am 14.02.2012 19:16, schrieb Jóhann B. Guðmundsson: On 02/14/2012 10:23 AM, Alfredo Ferrari wrote: Do the systemd maintainers ever read bug reports BTW? Why do you think otherwise? Not only read them but fix them as well. To give you some stats There are currently 96 Open bugs against systemd and 536 that have been closed at the time of this writing... In F15 which should be the most buggied release since it was the initial release into the distribution only has 11 bugs will systemctl restart ever has working autocompletion for RUNNING services? it is a littl ebit odd the it does show STOPPED services because restart makes ususally more sense for running ones... You could edit /etc/bash_completion.d/systemd-bash-completion.sh to do this for you. i could setup also linux from scratch that is not the point the question is: do systemd-developers never use TAB and type all their stuff completly like on a windows box that they do not recognize this at the first place? this is a category of bug where i always expect that no report is needed since every developer using his software is expected to take notice of this As you obviously haven't lost your ability to type, and your keyboard appears to have all the necessary non-tab keys still in place: file a bug on it if it bothers you so much. It might be a shocking revelation to you but not everybody uses or relies their world on bash autocompletion. - Panu - -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: /usrmove? - about the future
On Mon, 2012-02-13 at 09:28 -0800, Adam Williamson wrote: On Mon, 2012-02-13 at 14:47 +0100, Nils Philippsen wrote: On Fri, 2012-02-10 at 11:08 -0800, Adam Williamson wrote: Let me put it this way, then: Fedora is released on a six month cycle, which is far faster than is usually considered desirable for server usage. It has a 13 month lifetime, which is far shorter than is usually considered desirable for server usage. Its key values and goals are assuredly not compatible with typical server usage - e.g. First - We believe in the power of innovation and showing off new work in our releases. Since we release twice a year, you never have to wait long to see the latest and greatest software, while there are other Linux products derived from Fedora you can use for long-term stability. We always keep Fedora moving forward so that you can see the future first. There are numerous practical policies derived from these values which are clearly not optimal for server usage, such as the short freeze times, relatively low barrier of entry to disruptive features, and QA focus on installation and basic desktop use (we do virtually no QA on any kind of server usage). Finally, there are *several* Linux distributions available which have none of the above 'shortcomings' (so far as server usage is concerned). I'd say the same 'shortcomings' also hurt the end user case. The non-technical people I deal with loathe how we often introduce new features and break stuff (or just their way of doing things) in the process, even in updates -- I've stopped counting the Oh, updates. I wonder what you guys have broken now.-style comments by my wife. To me, Fedora is much better suited to be run on servers than by end users -- admins usually can help themselves in these situations. Don't take this as being against the slew of features Fedora introduces: personally I'm much in favor of systemd, the /usr move, pulseaudio and all that stuff -- there's no point in just treading water and being on the forefront of things is where Fedora is supposed to be. But let's not kid ourselves into thinking that with a life-cycle of only 13 months and the amount of change we introduce in each new release (especially on the desktop) we're somehow catering to end users who don't have a technically skilled spouse, relative or friend in the background to help if things don't work as expected. That also, at least arguably, isn't Fedora's aim (if it was, we'd be doing a terrible job of it, I agree). To cite the Board again: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/User_base Voluntary Linux consumer Computer-friendly Likely collaborator General productivity user Those four - especially 'computer-friendly' and 'likely collaborator' - don't scream 'end user' to me. My personal take has always been that Fedora is not the friendly desktop operating system of today, but a *prototype* of the friendly desktop operating system of tomorrow. A constantly moving prototype - so it never sits still and becomes the friendly desktop operating system of today. :) Of course :-). In the light of that however, I don't really understand the Fedora is not for servers arguments brought forth every so often... Fedora is not well-suited if what you want is longevity, full stop. Disregarding that point, Fedora on a server is quite hassle-free :-). Nils -- Adam Williamson Fedora QA Community Monkey IRC: adamw | Twitter: AdamW_Fedora | identi.ca: adamwfedora http://www.happyassassin.net -- Nils Philippsen Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase Red Hat a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty n...@redhat.com nor Safety. -- Benjamin Franklin, 1759 PGP fingerprint: C4A8 9474 5C4C ADE3 2B8F 656D 47D8 9B65 6951 3011 -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: /usrmove? - about the future
On 02/15/2012 05:49 AM, Panu Matilainen wrote: On 02/15/2012 11:55 AM, Reindl Harald wrote: Am 15.02.2012 10:53, schrieb Brendan Jones: On 02/15/2012 10:47 AM, Reindl Harald wrote: Am 14.02.2012 19:16, schrieb Jóhann B. Guðmundsson: On 02/14/2012 10:23 AM, Alfredo Ferrari wrote: Do the systemd maintainers ever read bug reports BTW? Why do you think otherwise? Not only read them but fix them as well. To give you some stats There are currently 96 Open bugs against systemd and 536 that have been closed at the time of this writing... In F15 which should be the most buggied release since it was the initial release into the distribution only has 11 bugs will systemctl restart ever has working autocompletion for RUNNING services? it is a littl ebit odd the it does show STOPPED services because restart makes ususally more sense for running ones... You could edit /etc/bash_completion.d/systemd-bash-completion.sh to do this for you. i could setup also linux from scratch that is not the point the question is: do systemd-developers never use TAB and type all their stuff completly like on a windows box that they do not recognize this at the first place? this is a category of bug where i always expect that no report is needed since every developer using his software is expected to take notice of this As you obviously haven't lost your ability to type, and your keyboard appears to have all the necessary non-tab keys still in place: file a bug on it if it bothers you so much. It might be a shocking revelation to you but not everybody uses or relies their world on bash autocompletion. - Panu - What world are you living in? -- Stephen Clark *NetWolves* Director of Technology Phone: 813-579-3200 Fax: 813-882-0209 Email: steve.cl...@netwolves.com http://www.netwolves.com -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: /usrmove? - about the future
On 02/15/2012 05:06 PM, Steve Clark wrote: On 02/15/2012 05:49 AM, Panu Matilainen wrote: It might be a shocking revelation to you but not everybody uses or relies their world on bash autocompletion. - Panu - What world are you living in? bash-completion is not a default package. Obviously only a small percentage of users are going to use it. This isn't something you need to debate about. If it was used by the majority, it would be there by default already. Rahul -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: /usrmove? - about the future
Am 15.02.2012 17:59, schrieb Rahul Sundaram: On 02/15/2012 05:06 PM, Steve Clark wrote: On 02/15/2012 05:49 AM, Panu Matilainen wrote: It might be a shocking revelation to you but not everybody uses or relies their world on bash autocompletion. - Panu - What world are you living in? bash-completion is not a default package. Obviously only a small percentage of users are going to use it. This isn't something you need to debate about. If it was used by the majority, it would be there by default already. it is used by all professional users using mostly a terminal it should not installed as deafult because desktop users do not need it at all, but this does not change the fact that systemd developers which i still call professional users should be more sensitive here - especially since the old /sbin/service had completion like a charme! signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: /usrmove? - about the future
Once upon a time, Rahul Sundaram methe...@gmail.com said: bash-completion is not a default package. Wrong since F16 - it is default in the Base group in comps. -- Chris Adams cmad...@hiwaay.net Systems and Network Administrator - HiWAAY Internet Services I don't speak for anybody but myself - that's enough trouble. -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: /usrmove? - about the future
On 02/15/2012 10:40 PM, Reindl Harald wrote: it is used by all professional users using mostly a terminal it should not installed as deafult because desktop users do not need it at all, but this does not change the fact that systemd developers which i still call professional users should be more sensitive here - especially since the old /sbin/service had completion like a charme! Have you filed a bug report yet? Rahul -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: /usrmove? - about the future
On 02/15/2012 10:48 PM, Chris Adams wrote: Once upon a time, Rahul Sundaram methe...@gmail.com said: bash-completion is not a default package. Wrong since F16 - it is default in the Base group in comps. Ah. didn't notice that. I haven't done a fresh installation since Fedora 11 or so. Regardless of that, the point remains that it is easier to file a bug report when you find a bug rather than assume the developers have noticed the problem already. I routinely remove bash-completion or disable it in the past because of slowdown in some cases and I suspect I am not the only one. Rahul -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: /usrmove? - about the future
On Wed, Feb 15, 2012 at 11:19:18PM +0530, Rahul Sundaram wrote: On 02/15/2012 10:48 PM, Chris Adams wrote: Once upon a time, Rahul Sundaram methe...@gmail.com said: bash-completion is not a default package. Wrong since F16 - it is default in the Base group in comps. Ah. didn't notice that. I haven't done a fresh installation since Fedora 11 or so. Regardless of that, the point remains that it is easier to file a bug report when you find a bug rather than assume the developers have noticed the problem already. I routinely remove bash-completion or disable it in the past because of slowdown in some cases and I suspect I am not the only one. And people use different shells (zsh seems to be popular), so they won't nottice bugs in something bash-specific. -- Tomasz Torcz 72-| 80-| xmpp: zdzich...@chrome.pl 72-| 80-| -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: /usrmove? - about the future
Am 15.02.2012 18:40, schrieb Rahul Sundaram: On 02/15/2012 10:40 PM, Reindl Harald wrote: it is used by all professional users using mostly a terminal it should not installed as deafult because desktop users do not need it at all, but this does not change the fact that systemd developers which i still call professional users should be more sensitive here - especially since the old /sbin/service had completion like a charme! Have you filed a bug report yet? i SURELY have made a notice in one of many bug-reports belonging to systemd last year signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: /usrmove? - about the future
Am 15.02.2012 18:53, schrieb Tomasz Torcz: On Wed, Feb 15, 2012 at 11:19:18PM +0530, Rahul Sundaram wrote: On 02/15/2012 10:48 PM, Chris Adams wrote: Once upon a time, Rahul Sundaram methe...@gmail.com said: bash-completion is not a default package. Wrong since F16 - it is default in the Base group in comps. Ah. didn't notice that. I haven't done a fresh installation since Fedora 11 or so. Regardless of that, the point remains that it is easier to file a bug report when you find a bug rather than assume the developers have noticed the problem already. I routinely remove bash-completion or disable it in the past because of slowdown in some cases and I suspect I am not the only one. And people use different shells (zsh seems to be popular), so they won't nottice bugs in something bash-specific. does not matter because bash is the default shell and transitions have to be targeted for defaults and any developer of core-components has to use system defaults for his testings signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: /usrmove? - about the future
On 02/15/2012 07:10 PM, Reindl Harald wrote: Am 15.02.2012 17:59, schrieb Rahul Sundaram: On 02/15/2012 05:06 PM, Steve Clark wrote: On 02/15/2012 05:49 AM, Panu Matilainen wrote: It might be a shocking revelation to you but not everybody uses or relies their world on bash autocompletion. - Panu - What world are you living in? bash-completion is not a default package. Obviously only a small percentage of users are going to use it. This isn't something you need to debate about. If it was used by the majority, it would be there by default already. it is used by all professional users using mostly a terminal No it is not. Many perhaps, but many does not equal all. it should not installed as deafult because desktop users do not need it at all, but this does not change the fact that systemd developers which i still call professional users should be more sensitive here - especially since the old /sbin/service had completion like a charme! For all this talk about professionals, the professional thing to do is to go file the bug already. Crying out OMG they broke my tab! Those bastards! in a mailing list thread about /usrmove is not particularly likely to get noticed by the people who might actually care and fix the damn apparently rather trivial thing. - Panu - -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: /usrmove? - about the future
On 02/16/2012 12:13 AM, Reindl Harald wrote: i SURELY have made a notice in one of many bug-reports belonging to systemd last year I don't recall seeing it and I am cc'ed in all systemd bug reports and also, individual bugs require individual bug reports. Not merely a note in another bug report which makes it harder to keep track of bugs and mark them as fixed. Do file seperate bug reports from now on. Rahul -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: /usrmove? - about the future
On Wed, Feb 15, 2012 at 07:45:41PM +0100, Reindl Harald wrote: does not matter because bash is the default shell and transitions have to be targeted for defaults and any developer of core-components has to use system defaults for his testings I'm sorry, it's clear at this point that you have expectations of our workflow that aren't terribly well aligned with those of the developers. I'd suggest that you'll spend much less of your time angry if you migrate to a distribution that's more receptive to your preferences. -- Matthew Garrett | mj...@srcf.ucam.org -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: /usrmove? - about the future
On Wed, 2012-02-15 at 18:10 +0100, Reindl Harald wrote: Am 15.02.2012 17:59, schrieb Rahul Sundaram: On 02/15/2012 05:06 PM, Steve Clark wrote: On 02/15/2012 05:49 AM, Panu Matilainen wrote: It might be a shocking revelation to you but not everybody uses or relies their world on bash autocompletion. - Panu - What world are you living in? bash-completion is not a default package. Obviously only a small percentage of users are going to use it. This isn't something you need to debate about. If it was used by the majority, it would be there by default already. it is used by all professional users using mostly a terminal yeah...I'm getting paid for this, so I guess I'm a professional user, and I use terminals an awful lot, but I don't use bash-completion. Every time I ever tried it I found, like Rahul, that it makes things slow and tends to get in my way more than it ever does help me. -- Adam Williamson Fedora QA Community Monkey IRC: adamw | Twitter: AdamW_Fedora | identi.ca: adamwfedora http://www.happyassassin.net -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: /usrmove? - about the future
On Wed, Feb 15, 2012 at 8:30 PM, Adam Williamson awill...@redhat.com wrote: On Wed, 2012-02-15 at 18:10 +0100, Reindl Harald wrote: Am 15.02.2012 17:59, schrieb Rahul Sundaram: On 02/15/2012 05:06 PM, Steve Clark wrote: On 02/15/2012 05:49 AM, Panu Matilainen wrote: It might be a shocking revelation to you but not everybody uses or relies their world on bash autocompletion. - Panu - What world are you living in? bash-completion is not a default package. Obviously only a small percentage of users are going to use it. This isn't something you need to debate about. If it was used by the majority, it would be there by default already. it is used by all professional users using mostly a terminal yeah...I'm getting paid for this, so I guess I'm a professional user, and I use terminals an awful lot, but I don't use bash-completion. Every time I ever tried it I found, like Rahul, that it makes things slow and tends to get in my way more than it ever does help me. I use bash completion all the time every single day - I guess I have become a corner case! -- mike c -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: /usrmove? - about the future
On 02/15/2012 05:19 PM, mike cloaked wrote: On Wed, Feb 15, 2012 at 8:30 PM, Adam Williamsonawill...@redhat.com wrote: On Wed, 2012-02-15 at 18:10 +0100, Reindl Harald wrote: Am 15.02.2012 17:59, schrieb Rahul Sundaram: On 02/15/2012 05:06 PM, Steve Clark wrote: On 02/15/2012 05:49 AM, Panu Matilainen wrote: It might be a shocking revelation to you but not everybody uses or relies their world on bash autocompletion. - Panu - What world are you living in? bash-completion is not a default package. Obviously only a small percentage of users are going to use it. This isn't something you need to debate about. If it was used by the majority, it would be there by default already. it is used by all professional users using mostly a terminal yeah...I'm getting paid for this, so I guess I'm a professional user, and I use terminals an awful lot, but I don't use bash-completion. Every time I ever tried it I found, like Rahul, that it makes things slow and tends to get in my way more than it ever does help me. I use bash completion all the time every single day - I guess I have become a corner case! No you haven't. All the developers I have worked with since the early nineties use it all the time every day. We would be lost without it. -- Stephen Clark *NetWolves* Director of Technology Phone: 813-579-3200 Fax: 813-882-0209 Email: steve.cl...@netwolves.com http://www.netwolves.com -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: /usrmove? - about the future
On 15/02/12 01:30 PM, Adam Williamson wrote: On Wed, 2012-02-15 at 18:10 +0100, Reindl Harald wrote: Am 15.02.2012 17:59, schrieb Rahul Sundaram: On 02/15/2012 05:06 PM, Steve Clark wrote: On 02/15/2012 05:49 AM, Panu Matilainen wrote: It might be a shocking revelation to you but not everybody uses or relies their world on bash autocompletion. - Panu - What world are you living in? bash-completion is not a default package. Obviously only a small percentage of users are going to use it. This isn't something you need to debate about. If it was used by the majority, it would be there by default already. it is used by all professional users using mostly a terminal yeah...I'm getting paid for this, so I guess I'm a professional user, and I use terminals an awful lot, but I don't use bash-completion. Every time I ever tried it I found, like Rahul, that it makes things slow and tends to get in my way more than it ever does help me. Right. And thanks to this thread I just learned what broke bash completion for me after fresh install of F16: 'rpm -e bash-completion' fixed bash for me :-) -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: /usrmove? - about the future
On 02/16/2012 07:46 AM, Dariusz J. Garbowski wrote: Right. And thanks to this thread I just learned what broke bash completion for me after fresh install of F16: 'rpm -e bash-completion' fixed bash for me :-) As a quick note; you should probably use yum remove instead of rpm -e because yumdb will be consistent if you stick to yum and that allows rollback etc. Rahul -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: /usrmove? - about the future
On 15 February 2012 17:23, Steve Clark scl...@netwolves.com wrote: On 02/15/2012 05:19 PM, mike cloaked wrote: On Wed, Feb 15, 2012 at 8:30 PM, Adam Williamson awill...@redhat.com wrote: On Wed, 2012-02-15 at 18:10 +0100, Reindl Harald wrote: Am 15.02.2012 17:59, schrieb Rahul Sundaram: On 02/15/2012 05:06 PM, Steve Clark wrote: On 02/15/2012 05:49 AM, Panu Matilainen wrote: It might be a shocking revelation to you but not everybody uses or relies their world on bash autocompletion. - Panu - What world are you living in? bash-completion is not a default package. Obviously only a small percentage of users are going to use it. This isn't something you need to debate about. If it was used by the majority, it would be there by default already. it is used by all professional users using mostly a terminal yeah...I'm getting paid for this, so I guess I'm a professional user, and I use terminals an awful lot, but I don't use bash-completion. Every time I ever tried it I found, like Rahul, that it makes things slow and tends to get in my way more than it ever does help me. I use bash completion all the time every single day - I guess I have become a corner case! No you haven't. All the developers I have worked with since the early nineties use it all the time every day. We would be lost without it. Before getting too far down this rabbit hole... realize there are two bash-completions 1) The built in one. I type ls chtab and bash goes to look at things and either completes or gives me a list of possible completions. 2) The bash-completions add-on. Which does all kinds of wonderful things which when they work is really nice.. it will autocomplete hostnames if you type ssh ftab, it will autocomplete depending on the command you typed the most obvious items... etc etc. It also can really really slow you down at times or cause issues with just normal bash completion. A bad autocomplete can cause you to sit 3-4 minutes as DNS or other things time out. The people talking in this conversation are talking about 2. The type you are talking about is 1. Completely different. -- Stephen J Smoogen. The core skill of innovators is error recovery, not failure avoidance. Randy Nelson, President of Pixar University. Years ago my mother used to say to me,... Elwood, you must be oh so smart or oh so pleasant. Well, for years I was smart. I recommend pleasant. You may quote me. —James Stewart as Elwood P. Dowd -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: /usrmove? - about the future
On Wed, Feb 15, 2012 at 07:23:24PM -0500, Steve Clark wrote: On 02/15/2012 05:19 PM, mike cloaked wrote: I use bash completion all the time every single day - I guess I have become a corner case! No you haven't. All the developers I have worked with since the early nineties use it all the time every day. We would be lost without it. You may have been working with them since the earliy nineties, but the feature was only introduced in 2.04 in 2000. Programmable completion is fairly modern compared to the rest of bash... -- Matthew Garrett | mj...@srcf.ucam.org -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: /usrmove? - about the future
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=753339 ... and reboot is still not working on Fedora 16 on several machines... do the systemd maintainers ever read bug reports BTW? ++ | Alfredo Ferrari || Tel.: +41.22.767.6119 | | C.E.R.N.|| Fax.: +41.22.767.7555 | | European Laboratory for Particle Physics||| | AB Division / ATB Group || e-mail: | | 1211 Geneva 23 || alfredo.ferr...@cern.ch| | Switzerland || alfredo.ferr...@mi.infn.it | ++ On Fri, 10 Feb 2012, Jef Spaleta wrote: On Fri, Feb 10, 2012 at 8:21 AM, Reindl Harald h.rei...@thelounge.net wrote: F15 was the first Linux i saw where reboot did not work until you typed kill 1 while praying! Can you point me to a bug report from you or anyone else that has been confirmed by at least one other person? I personally didn't experience that with the F15 systems I had. But maybe I got lucked and dodged a bullet. -jef -- 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: /usrmove? - about the future
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=753339 ... with clean install and on Fedora 16, two duifferent machines ++ | Alfredo Ferrari || Tel.: +41.22.767.6119 | | C.E.R.N.|| Fax.: +41.22.767.7555 | | European Laboratory for Particle Physics||| | AB Division / ATB Group || e-mail: | | 1211 Geneva 23 || alfredo.ferr...@cern.ch| | Switzerland || alfredo.ferr...@mi.infn.it | ++ On Fri, 10 Feb 2012, Bruno Wolff III wrote: On Fri, Feb 10, 2012 at 08:28:28 -0900, Jef Spaleta jspal...@gmail.com wrote: I personally didn't experience that with the F15 systems I had. But maybe I got lucked and dodged a bullet. It seems pretty common that updating systemd causes problems with the next shutdown. I don't know why and it is a pain to reproduce since it doesn't happen again on the next reboot. I don't know if there are tickets corresponding to these issues, but I have seen other people make similar observations. -- 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: /usrmove? - about the future
Alfredo Ferrari wrote: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=753339 ... and reboot is still not working on Fedora 16 on several machines... It's not obvious whether systemd is to blame for this bug. do the systemd maintainers ever read bug reports BTW? Of course. You have comments from one of the maintainers in the very bugreport you linked to. Michal, a systemd co-maintainer -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: /usrmove? - about the future
On 02/14/2012 10:23 AM, Alfredo Ferrari wrote: Do the systemd maintainers ever read bug reports BTW? Why do you think otherwise? Not only read them but fix them as well. To give you some stats There are currently 96 Open bugs against systemd and 536 that have been closed at the time of this writing... In F15 which should be the most buggied release since it was the initial release into the distribution only has 11 bugs 1 one actual bug but a very low priority one ( Proper solution to that fixm needs to be thought out before implementing it ) The rest are DOC and RFE's and 2 misfiled once ( nis and mdadm which affects all release and has been fixed in F17/rawhide ). I think those stats speak for themselves and the people doing the work behind it. JBG -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: /usrmove? - about the future
On 02/10/2012 07:12 PM, Jon Ciesla wrote: Given all that, it seems only logical to conclude that Fedora really _isn't_ primarily intended for use as a production server. Bingo, which is why it's important for people like me who do it to realize what they're getting into and take some responsibility for that choice, like with any other technological choice. If you aren't will to either take downtime for Anaconda or preupgrade, or do lots of fresh installs, or mess with yum upgrades, use RHEL/CO/SL/Etc. Not for the feint of heart, and I sure as heck don't do it at work. :) For what it's worth, I *do* use it at work and on the whole I have very little trouble. Yes, upgrading can be a PITA, but it's usually just a few hours. I don't mind. Andrew. -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: /usrmove? - about the future
On Fri, 2012-02-10 at 11:08 -0800, Adam Williamson wrote: Let me put it this way, then: Fedora is released on a six month cycle, which is far faster than is usually considered desirable for server usage. It has a 13 month lifetime, which is far shorter than is usually considered desirable for server usage. Its key values and goals are assuredly not compatible with typical server usage - e.g. First - We believe in the power of innovation and showing off new work in our releases. Since we release twice a year, you never have to wait long to see the latest and greatest software, while there are other Linux products derived from Fedora you can use for long-term stability. We always keep Fedora moving forward so that you can see the future first. There are numerous practical policies derived from these values which are clearly not optimal for server usage, such as the short freeze times, relatively low barrier of entry to disruptive features, and QA focus on installation and basic desktop use (we do virtually no QA on any kind of server usage). Finally, there are *several* Linux distributions available which have none of the above 'shortcomings' (so far as server usage is concerned). I'd say the same 'shortcomings' also hurt the end user case. The non-technical people I deal with loathe how we often introduce new features and break stuff (or just their way of doing things) in the process, even in updates -- I've stopped counting the Oh, updates. I wonder what you guys have broken now.-style comments by my wife. To me, Fedora is much better suited to be run on servers than by end users -- admins usually can help themselves in these situations. Don't take this as being against the slew of features Fedora introduces: personally I'm much in favor of systemd, the /usr move, pulseaudio and all that stuff -- there's no point in just treading water and being on the forefront of things is where Fedora is supposed to be. But let's not kid ourselves into thinking that with a life-cycle of only 13 months and the amount of change we introduce in each new release (especially on the desktop) we're somehow catering to end users who don't have a technically skilled spouse, relative or friend in the background to help if things don't work as expected. Nils -- Nils Philippsen Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase Red Hat a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty n...@redhat.com nor Safety. -- Benjamin Franklin, 1759 PGP fingerprint: C4A8 9474 5C4C ADE3 2B8F 656D 47D8 9B65 6951 3011 -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: /usrmove? - about the future
On Mon, 2012-02-13 at 14:47 +0100, Nils Philippsen wrote: On Fri, 2012-02-10 at 11:08 -0800, Adam Williamson wrote: Let me put it this way, then: Fedora is released on a six month cycle, which is far faster than is usually considered desirable for server usage. It has a 13 month lifetime, which is far shorter than is usually considered desirable for server usage. Its key values and goals are assuredly not compatible with typical server usage - e.g. First - We believe in the power of innovation and showing off new work in our releases. Since we release twice a year, you never have to wait long to see the latest and greatest software, while there are other Linux products derived from Fedora you can use for long-term stability. We always keep Fedora moving forward so that you can see the future first. There are numerous practical policies derived from these values which are clearly not optimal for server usage, such as the short freeze times, relatively low barrier of entry to disruptive features, and QA focus on installation and basic desktop use (we do virtually no QA on any kind of server usage). Finally, there are *several* Linux distributions available which have none of the above 'shortcomings' (so far as server usage is concerned). I'd say the same 'shortcomings' also hurt the end user case. The non-technical people I deal with loathe how we often introduce new features and break stuff (or just their way of doing things) in the process, even in updates -- I've stopped counting the Oh, updates. I wonder what you guys have broken now.-style comments by my wife. To me, Fedora is much better suited to be run on servers than by end users -- admins usually can help themselves in these situations. Don't take this as being against the slew of features Fedora introduces: personally I'm much in favor of systemd, the /usr move, pulseaudio and all that stuff -- there's no point in just treading water and being on the forefront of things is where Fedora is supposed to be. But let's not kid ourselves into thinking that with a life-cycle of only 13 months and the amount of change we introduce in each new release (especially on the desktop) we're somehow catering to end users who don't have a technically skilled spouse, relative or friend in the background to help if things don't work as expected. That also, at least arguably, isn't Fedora's aim (if it was, we'd be doing a terrible job of it, I agree). To cite the Board again: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/User_base Voluntary Linux consumer Computer-friendly Likely collaborator General productivity user Those four - especially 'computer-friendly' and 'likely collaborator' - don't scream 'end user' to me. My personal take has always been that Fedora is not the friendly desktop operating system of today, but a *prototype* of the friendly desktop operating system of tomorrow. A constantly moving prototype - so it never sits still and becomes the friendly desktop operating system of today. :) -- Adam Williamson Fedora QA Community Monkey IRC: adamw | Twitter: AdamW_Fedora | identi.ca: adamwfedora http://www.happyassassin.net -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: /usrmove? - about the future
Am 10.02.2012 12:59, schrieb Miloslav Trmač: On Fri, Feb 10, 2012 at 12:42 PM, Reindl Harald h.rei...@thelounge.net wrote: Am 10.02.2012 10:06, schrieb Jóhann B. Guðmundsson: The state of overall migration to systemd is depended on each package maintainer(s) and at current rate that wont be finished until F20+. so fedora has STOPPED to be a distribution it is a bundle of packages which hopefully work together and nobody feels repsonsible for anything, things may happen or not or somewhere in a undefined fuuture the definition of a distribution is that all packages are comonig from one central source (repos) and are optimized to work together and not everybody does like he feel and if things are not badly enough broken they will not be touched I quite agree this is (becoming?) a problem - but can you suggest a workable solution? calm down new features because you see now what happended What can FESCo practically do when tens of packagers simply ignore the bugs filed against their components? learn from what has happened? More importantly, what can FESCo practically do when a component has an abrt bug open for 5 months, roughly 1 new reporter per day is added, and the package owner has not done a single action in bugzilla? has anybody spent a thought that the reason maybe that more and more maintainers are getting frustrated about the way big changes brought up by some people are introduced forcing all maintainers to act and that the number of such changes in a short timeframe is the reason? If the answer is kick the package out of the distribution, I'm sad to say the distribution would have some glaring holes. We really need to find a good solution for these cases, or Fedora will, as you say, stop being a distribution. a good solution would be NOT introduce in each release BIG changes NOT frustrade maintainers which a lot of work until they do no longer see the horizon because at the moment they have finished one change the next is brought up under pressure more and more of them will giving up or start workaround somehow about the probblems but not having the energy do this clean because they all have a real life, have to maintain F-1, F-N, F-N+1 the release schedule of fedora is no longer working good with this pressure at each release and will sooner or later stop completly if people do not change the way fedora as distribution acts POSSIBLE SOLUTION: each second release does not introduzce those big changes and only optimize existing things and bringing only new versions of packages require a simple mass rebuild for so-changes you can call it F17, F17.5 where F17 have a big chnage affecting the whole distribution and F17.5 is only a careful upgrade without intention to break stuff and require actions from all involved people take away the current pressure from maintainers as well users give the involved people time to breath this is opensource, there is NO SINGLE NEED to implement any possible good idea under pressure NOW and beeing first only for beeing first is not always the right hting signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: /usrmove? - about the future
On Fri, Feb 10, 2012 at 1:13 PM, Reindl Harald h.rei...@thelounge.net wrote: [..] POSSIBLE SOLUTION: each second release does not introduzce those big changes and only optimize existing things and bringing only new versions of packages require a simple mass rebuild for so-changes you can call it F17, F17.5 where F17 have a big chnage affecting the whole distribution and F17.5 is only a careful upgrade without intention to break stuff and require actions from all involved people take away the current pressure from maintainers as well users give the involved people time to breath this is opensource, there is NO SINGLE NEED to implement any possible good idea under pressure NOW and beeing first only for beeing first is not always the right hting Well it seems that you are better suited with using a distro like RHEL (or one of its clones). -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: /usrmove? - about the future
Am 10.02.2012 15:09, schrieb drago01: On Fri, Feb 10, 2012 at 1:13 PM, Reindl Harald h.rei...@thelounge.net wrote: [..] POSSIBLE SOLUTION: each second release does not introduzce those big changes and only optimize existing things and bringing only new versions of packages require a simple mass rebuild for so-changes you can call it F17, F17.5 where F17 have a big chnage affecting the whole distribution and F17.5 is only a careful upgrade without intention to break stuff and require actions from all involved people take away the current pressure from maintainers as well users give the involved people time to breath this is opensource, there is NO SINGLE NEED to implement any possible good idea under pressure NOW and beeing first only for beeing first is not always the right hting Well it seems that you are better suited with using a distro like RHEL (or one of its clones). no because i need current software-versions, but current does not mean broken/unfinished or baken in rush also even if i would be better suited (what is not the case) this would not change the fact that the current fedora release/devel process is broken and even as RHEL user this would cause sorrows on my side fedora would be close to a perfect distribution if there would not be so much useless feature-pressure in each release useless because if you are release every 6 months you will nothing lose spare out a big change to the next release and win overall quality and stability and at least it would not result in so many burned out maintainers which everybody can recognize if he openes his eyes currently fedira is on the best way to burn down it's contributors by blindly enforce changes an dpressure to them! signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: /usrmove? - about the future
On Fri, Feb 10, 2012 at 01:13:13PM +0100, Reindl Harald wrote: POSSIBLE SOLUTION: each second release does not introduzce those big changes and only optimize existing things and bringing only new versions of packages require a simple mass rebuild for so-changes you can call it F17, F17.5 where F17 have a big chnage affecting the whole distribution and F17.5 is only a careful upgrade without intention to break stuff and require actions from all involved people take away the current pressure from maintainers as well users give the involved people time to breath this is opensource, there is NO SINGLE NEED to implement any possible good idea under pressure NOW and beeing first only for beeing first is not always the right hting I think this would increase the pressure to push unpolished features into the distribution. Allowing big feature changes only every two releases means that the waiting time should the feature not get merged is 12 months. For some features that's quite unacceptable. So the likely effect is that these features will be called ready whenever they need to be (according to the process) with the rest simply called optimizing. Cheers, Peter -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: /usrmove? - about the future
Am 10.02.2012 16:06, schrieb Peter Hutterer: On Fri, Feb 10, 2012 at 01:13:13PM +0100, Reindl Harald wrote: POSSIBLE SOLUTION: each second release does not introduzce those big changes and only optimize existing things and bringing only new versions of packages require a simple mass rebuild for so-changes you can call it F17, F17.5 where F17 have a big chnage affecting the whole distribution and F17.5 is only a careful upgrade without intention to break stuff and require actions from all involved people take away the current pressure from maintainers as well users give the involved people time to breath this is opensource, there is NO SINGLE NEED to implement any possible good idea under pressure NOW and beeing first only for beeing first is not always the right hting I think this would increase the pressure to push unpolished features into the distribution. Allowing big feature changes only every two releases means that the waiting time should the feature not get merged is 12 months. For some features that's quite unacceptable. So the likely effect is that these features will be called ready whenever they need to be (according to the process) with the rest simply called optimizing. if people do not care the can destroy every process if someone calls repeatly non-ready features as ready he is the wrong person for any sort of decision maybe the project should get rid of some people who do not care or guidelines which have the power to ENFORCE contributors or get rid of them yes this may sound hard but what is the alternative? burn down ressources with each relese more and more signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: /usrmove? - about the future
- Original Message - From: Reindl Harald h.rei...@thelounge.net To: devel@lists.fedoraproject.org Sent: Friday, February 10, 2012 10:43:07 AM Subject: Re: /usrmove? - about the future Am 10.02.2012 16:06, schrieb Peter Hutterer: On Fri, Feb 10, 2012 at 01:13:13PM +0100, Reindl Harald wrote: POSSIBLE SOLUTION: each second release does not introduzce those big changes and only optimize existing things and bringing only new versions of packages require a simple mass rebuild for so-changes you can call it F17, F17.5 where F17 have a big chnage affecting the whole distribution and F17.5 is only a careful upgrade without intention to break stuff and require actions from all involved people take away the current pressure from maintainers as well users give the involved people time to breath this is opensource, there is NO SINGLE NEED to implement any possible good idea under pressure NOW and beeing first only for beeing first is not always the right hting I think this would increase the pressure to push unpolished features into the distribution. Allowing big feature changes only every two releases means that the waiting time should the feature not get merged is 12 months. For some features that's quite unacceptable. So the likely effect is that these features will be called ready whenever they need to be (according to the process) with the rest simply called optimizing. if people do not care the can destroy every process if someone calls repeatly non-ready features as ready he is the wrong person for any sort of decision maybe the project should get rid of some people who do not care or guidelines which have the power to ENFORCE contributors or get rid of them yes this may sound hard but what is the alternative? burn down ressources with each relese more and more Hi, Where can I review your formal submission(s) for such improvements? Thanks, Steve -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: /usrmove? - about the future
Am 10.02.2012 16:49, schrieb Steve Gordon: - Original Message - From: Reindl Harald h.rei...@thelounge.net So the likely effect is that these features will be called ready whenever they need to be (according to the process) with the rest simply called optimizing. if people do not care the can destroy every process if someone calls repeatly non-ready features as ready he is the wrong person for any sort of decision maybe the project should get rid of some people who do not care or guidelines which have the power to ENFORCE contributors or get rid of them yes this may sound hard but what is the alternative? burn down ressources with each relese more and more Where can I review your formal submission(s) for such improvements? they do not exist because fedoras feature-quality at release burns down way to much of my time to maintain 20 machines with fedora and rebuild half of the distribution to fix design bugs so if the releases would be more well thought i would have time to write such things, but then there would be no need for it signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: /usrmove? - about the future
On Fri, Feb 10, 2012 at 16:57:18 +0100, Reindl Harald h.rei...@thelounge.net wrote: so if the releases would be more well thought i would have time to write such things, but then there would be no need for it Consider running for FESCO this spring and emphasize your views on features in your campaign. While I don't think the problem is as bad as you think, but I would like to see features that have distro wide impact land much earlier. For example I would have preferred usrmove to target F18 rather than (mostly) land at the F17 branching. -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: /usrmove? - about the future
On Fri, 2012-02-10 at 13:13 +0100, Reindl Harald wrote: I quite agree this is (becoming?) a problem - but can you suggest a workable solution? calm down new features because you see now what happended On a point of fact: what _is_ it that you are suggesting happened exactly? Everyone on this list is well aware of the fact that you consider systemd a terrible failure because not every package in Fedora yet has systemd-native init scripts, but by the same token, it is clear that almost no-one agrees with you. On a solid practical level, I am not aware that systemd is currently the source of any major problems in Fedora 15, 16 or 17. I have not seen systemd identified as a major problem by any independent review of Fedora. I have not seen it brought it up as a major issue in any kind of release readiness or validation context. So your use of systemd as an example of the feature process being a terrible idea seems like a weak choice. The only other actual real-world feature that has been cited in the present discussion is /usr move. Aside from the FESCo discussion about whether they could have handled its feature approval better, on a solid practical level, the feature landed in Rawhide and so far as I know has caused no major problems for anyone who's migrated to it: I have seen none such reported. It has not prevented us from building composes, nor has it stopped those composes working. The code to handle /usr move in anaconda actually landed a couple of days ago, and should be included in Alpha TC2, which was released yesterday. Personally, I quite simply don't agree with the entire foundation of your argumentation in this thread. You suggest that the rapid pace of feature development in general is causing terrible problems for the distro, and cite systemd and /usr move as examples; I simply don't see that your examples back up your contention. -- Adam Williamson Fedora QA Community Monkey IRC: adamw | Twitter: AdamW_Fedora | identi.ca: adamwfedora http://www.happyassassin.net -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: /usrmove? - about the future
Am 10.02.2012 18:05, schrieb Adam Williamson: On Fri, 2012-02-10 at 13:13 +0100, Reindl Harald wrote: Everyone on this list is well aware of the fact that you consider systemd a terrible failure because not every package in Fedora yet has systemd-native init scripts, but by the same token, it is clear that almost no-one agrees with you. On a solid practical level, I am not aware that systemd is currently the source of any major problems in Fedora 15, 16 or 17. F15 was horrible broken mysqld in F15 was horrible broken F15 was the first Linux i saw where reboot did not work until you typed kill 1 while praying! if no one agress that is unacceptable that init-system is changed in F15 and F17 still contains not converted services then no one knows how quality looks like for me there are two options * doing a change and doing it completly * doing not the change at all if maintainers can not be forced to convert their services and maintain their packages properly the distribution lacks needed authority - and NO freedom and do what you want does not work always and in every context Personally, I quite simply don't agree with the entire foundation of your argumentation in this thread. You suggest that the rapid pace of feature development in general is causing terrible problems for the distro, and cite systemd and /usr move as examples; I simply don't see that your examples back up your contention. as long as /usrmove requires something else than yum distro-sync for a working upgrade the feature is broken at all other examples from the past: KDE4.0, put in a pre-alpha state in F9, completly unuseable because someone HEARED it MAY be ready until end of GA cycle someone heard, thought and expected that something is ready is the wrong argument for decisions - if i want to pray i go in a church. this has nothing to search in software-development pulseuadio was horrible broken and did not work on any of my machines for some releases systemd is not finished until now and 20 releases behind upstream in F15, half of the packages are not converted your definition and my definition of quality are complete incompatible signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: /usrmove? - about the future
On Fri, Feb 10, 2012 at 8:21 AM, Reindl Harald h.rei...@thelounge.net wrote: F15 was the first Linux i saw where reboot did not work until you typed kill 1 while praying! Can you point me to a bug report from you or anyone else that has been confirmed by at least one other person? I personally didn't experience that with the F15 systems I had. But maybe I got lucked and dodged a bullet. -jef -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: /usrmove? - about the future
On Fri, 2012-02-10 at 18:21 +0100, Reindl Harald wrote: Am 10.02.2012 18:05, schrieb Adam Williamson: On Fri, 2012-02-10 at 13:13 +0100, Reindl Harald wrote: Everyone on this list is well aware of the fact that you consider systemd a terrible failure because not every package in Fedora yet has systemd-native init scripts, but by the same token, it is clear that almost no-one agrees with you. On a solid practical level, I am not aware that systemd is currently the source of any major problems in Fedora 15, 16 or 17. F15 was horrible broken mysqld in F15 was horrible broken My servers ran F15 for six months. Never had a problem with mysql. As I recall, your issues with mysql were to do with a specific fairly advanced use case, hardly general-purpose stuff. F15 was the first Linux i saw where reboot did not work until you typed kill 1 while praying! I ran F15 on four machines for months, didn't have that problem. If lots of people had, I would have expected to hear a lot more noise. if no one agress that is unacceptable that init-system is changed in F15 and F17 still contains not converted services then no one knows how quality looks like I don't agree, no. systemd was explicitly written to be 100% sysv-compatible because everyone involved knew perfectly well that sysv init scripts would stick around for years. That outcome was entirely expected and planned for. I'm not aware of any major bug caused by using a sysv init script with systemd in current Fedora. So why is it you think this is such a huge problem? for me there are two options * doing a change and doing it completly * doing not the change at all if maintainers can not be forced to convert their services and maintain their packages properly the distribution lacks needed authority - and NO freedom and do what you want does not work always and in every context Personally, I quite simply don't agree with the entire foundation of your argumentation in this thread. You suggest that the rapid pace of feature development in general is causing terrible problems for the distro, and cite systemd and /usr move as examples; I simply don't see that your examples back up your contention. as long as /usrmove requires something else than yum distro-sync for a working upgrade the feature is broken at all other examples from the past: KDE4.0, put in a pre-alpha state in F9, completly unuseable because someone HEARED it MAY be ready until end of GA cycle someone heard, thought and expected that something is ready is the wrong argument for decisions - if i want to pray i go in a church. this has nothing to search in software-development pulseuadio was horrible broken and did not work on any of my machines for some releases systemd is not finished until now and 20 releases behind upstream in F15, half of the packages are not converted your definition and my definition of quality are complete incompatible -- Adam Williamson Fedora QA Community Monkey IRC: adamw | Twitter: AdamW_Fedora | identi.ca: adamwfedora http://www.happyassassin.net -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: /usrmove? - about the future
On Fri, Feb 10, 2012 at 04:57:18PM +0100, Reindl Harald wrote: Am 10.02.2012 16:49, schrieb Steve Gordon: - Original Message - From: Reindl Harald h.rei...@thelounge.net So the likely effect is that these features will be called ready whenever they need to be (according to the process) with the rest simply called optimizing. if people do not care the can destroy every process if someone calls repeatly non-ready features as ready he is the wrong person for any sort of decision maybe the project should get rid of some people who do not care or guidelines which have the power to ENFORCE contributors or get rid of them yes this may sound hard but what is the alternative? burn down ressources with each relese more and more Where can I review your formal submission(s) for such improvements? they do not exist because fedoras feature-quality at release burns down way to much of my time to maintain 20 machines with fedora and rebuild half of the distribution to fix design bugs so if the releases would be more well thought i would have time to write such things, but then there would be no need for it I haven't seen much tangible change in the direction Fedora is heading as a result of all your emails, spending some of that time on formal suggestions for improvement may change this. Cheers, Peter -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: /usrmove? - about the future
On Fri, 2012-02-10 at 08:28 -0900, Jef Spaleta wrote: On Fri, Feb 10, 2012 at 8:21 AM, Reindl Harald h.rei...@thelounge.net wrote: F15 was the first Linux i saw where reboot did not work until you typed kill 1 while praying! Can you point me to a bug report from you or anyone else that has been confirmed by at least one other person? I personally didn't experience that with the F15 systems I had. But maybe I got lucked and dodged a bullet. Just upgraded an F14 machine to F15 yesterday via installing f15's fedora-release and 'yum upgrade'. I did experience this bug, but only before I'd rebooted. When the system was actually running F15 this problem does not appear and restarts work fine. But I did have to drop to a VT and manually whack the system to get it to reboot; even 'poweroff' didn't do it. Clearly that could be handled better, but honestly, we don't support this type of upgrade. Isn't our only supported upgrade path via preupgrade, which I'm assuming would handle this well? In any case, badmouthing systemd for an upgrade bug where it actually works fine *when you're really running F15* doesn't seem right. I wouldn't have had this problem if it'd installed off the Live CD or done a fresh install. Dan -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: /usrmove? - about the future
On Fri, Feb 10, 2012 at 08:28:28 -0900, Jef Spaleta jspal...@gmail.com wrote: I personally didn't experience that with the F15 systems I had. But maybe I got lucked and dodged a bullet. It seems pretty common that updating systemd causes problems with the next shutdown. I don't know why and it is a pain to reproduce since it doesn't happen again on the next reboot. I don't know if there are tickets corresponding to these issues, but I have seen other people make similar observations. -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: /usrmove? - about the future
On 02/10/2012 06:33 PM, Bruno Wolff III wrote: It seems pretty common that updating systemd causes problems with the next shutdown. I don't know why and it is a pain to reproduce since it doesn't happen again on the next reboot. Did you see the problem with updates within a stable Fedora release? Or do you mean updates in Rawhide / Branched? Michal -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: /usrmove? - about the future
Am 10.02.2012 18:28, schrieb Jef Spaleta: On Fri, Feb 10, 2012 at 8:21 AM, Reindl Harald h.rei...@thelounge.net wrote: F15 was the first Linux i saw where reboot did not work until you typed kill 1 while praying! Can you point me to a bug report from you or anyone else that has been confirmed by at least one other person? I personally didn't experience that with the F15 systems I had. But maybe I got lucked and dodged a bullet. no i can not because it is a one-shot thing to do yum distro-sync and so i had no time for a bugrport while other more important things like mysqld were horrible broken but this was reproduceable on all vritual machines a own including my two physical machines and the notebook of my co-developer and shows that something was not well thought or yum upgrades was never tested enough because Fedora thinks Anaconda is the way too go what is a horrible broken thing for a upgrade because you have no single chance to verify grub-config, enabled services or anything and blindly reboot in a unknown state if it boots i made 3 fedora upgrades in my life with Anaconda/Preupgrade and all 3 were horrible broken ending in a no longe rbotting machine while around 200 dist-upgrades with yum were clean and controllable - so any feature breaking yum upgrades while services are UP is a spit in my face and yes, if this braindead (sorry no other words) autorestart of services while yum upgrade is running would be controllable instead spit it in each SPEC to force rebuild all these packages would be optimized this whould make much more sense as move files from here to there wich is not interesting any user and was no problem for amny many years and is no problem currently which needs to fixed under pressure signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: /usrmove? - about the future
On Fri, Feb 10, 2012 at 8:36 AM, Dan Williams d...@redhat.com wrote: In any case, badmouthing systemd for an upgrade bug where it actually works fine *when you're really running F15* doesn't seem right. I wouldn't have had this problem if it'd installed off the Live CD or done a fresh install. Shrug, I don't make it a point to do yum based upgrades across release boundaries so that would explain why i didn't encounter it. Did anyone doing and testing the not supported upgrade dance to F15 bother filing it at any point? Obviously people use it regardless of what the support policy is. I would imagine one of them would file it as a market for other people who aren't going to follow policy. I noticed it wasn't list as a common gotcha on the F15 commons bug page that is maintained to handle these sorts of quibbles. Do we allow for recognition of the not supported upgrade dance in the common bugs information as a policy or is it the upgrade path that must not be named? -jef -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: /usrmove? - about the future
Am 10.02.2012 18:32, schrieb Adam Williamson: On Fri, 2012-02-10 at 18:21 +0100, Reindl Harald wrote: Am 10.02.2012 18:05, schrieb Adam Williamson: On Fri, 2012-02-10 at 13:13 +0100, Reindl Harald wrote: Everyone on this list is well aware of the fact that you consider systemd a terrible failure because not every package in Fedora yet has systemd-native init scripts, but by the same token, it is clear that almost no-one agrees with you. On a solid practical level, I am not aware that systemd is currently the source of any major problems in Fedora 15, 16 or 17. F15 was horrible broken mysqld in F15 was horrible broken My servers ran F15 for six months. Never had a problem with mysql. As I recall, your issues with mysql were to do with a specific fairly advanced use case, hardly general-purpose stuff. and this is what blindly butchers not realize: there are well maintained servers not running only plain default configs F15 was the first Linux i saw where reboot did not work until you typed kill 1 while praying! I ran F15 on four machines for months, didn't have that problem. If lots of people had, I would have expected to hear a lot more noise. dmaned you make the dist-upgrade once and not over years if no one agress that is unacceptable that init-system is changed in F15 and F17 still contains not converted services then no one knows how quality looks like I don't agree, no. systemd was explicitly written to be 100% sysv-compatible BUT IT IS NOT AND IT WAS NEVER AND IT WILL NEVER why are VMware-Workstation machines are killed hardly as they was clean suspended until systemd came into my life? yes, it is not a fedora package but that does not matter and prove your argument is wrong - if it would be 100% comatible it would not act like a blind butcher at shutdown even this service does not help as long as it is not stopped manually before type reboot/shutdown, so please leave me in peace with theory where the real life is painful [root@srv-rhsoft:~]$ cat /etc/systemd/system/vmware-default.service [Unit] Description=VMware-Default-Machines After=vmware.service [Service] Type=oneshot ExecStart=/bin/su -c /scripts/vmware/vm-default-start.sh vmware ExecStop=/scripts/vmware/vm-suspend-all.sh RemainAfterExit=yes TimeoutSec=600 SysVStartPriority=90 [Install] WantedBy=multi-user.target _ if it would be 100% compatible all my mysqld problems of services are crashing because they was fired up long before mysqld was ready for connections would never have existed signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: /usrmove? - about the future
On Fri, Feb 10, 2012 at 8:41 AM, Reindl Harald h.rei...@thelounge.net wrote: no i can not because it is a one-shot thing to do yum distro-sync and so i had no time for a bugrport while other more important things like mysqld were horrible broken Let me strongly suggest, that unfiled problems will never get fixed because you cannot assume your workflow is part of anyone elses prerelease testing. Let me further stridently suggest that if you or any user insist on using an upgrade path which is stated as a matter of policy as unsupported, that you no justification for assuming that the official testing will catch problems with it and thus you have no business complaining about it a year later. You best course of action when relying on an unsupported set of actions is to do your own testing, and report back deficiencies. If you are nice and polite and professional in the bugreports you have a chance that developers will do you a _favor_ and attempt to fix the problem in the _unsupported_ workflow. But if you do not file, and you do not test then well...adjust your workflow and avoid the unsupported actions and reduce the impedance mismatch with the fedora development process as it stands. -jef -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: /usrmove? - about the future
On Fri, Feb 10, 2012 at 11:42 AM, Jef Spaleta jspal...@gmail.com wrote: On Fri, Feb 10, 2012 at 8:36 AM, Dan Williams d...@redhat.com wrote: In any case, badmouthing systemd for an upgrade bug where it actually works fine *when you're really running F15* doesn't seem right. I wouldn't have had this problem if it'd installed off the Live CD or done a fresh install. Shrug, I don't make it a point to do yum based upgrades across release boundaries so that would explain why i didn't encounter it. Did anyone doing and testing the not supported upgrade dance to F15 bother filing it at any point? Obviously people use it regardless of what the support policy is. I would imagine one of them would file it as a market for other people who aren't going to follow policy. I've been yum upgrading since FC1. I didn't see that. I was also running a mysql server. I noticed it wasn't list as a common gotcha on the F15 commons bug page that is maintained to handle these sorts of quibbles. Do we allow for recognition of the not supported upgrade dance in the common bugs information as a policy or is it the upgrade path that must not be named? -jef -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel -- in your fear, seek only peace in your fear, seek only love -d. bowie -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: /usrmove? - about the future
On 02/10/2012 11:11 PM, Reindl Harald wrote: no i can not because it is a one-shot thing to do yum distro-sync and so i had no time for a bugrport while other more important things like mysqld were horrible broken Considering the number of mails in this list where you have repeated the problem, I think there is time now to file a bug report and try and get the problem fixed. It is a far more efficient way. Rahul -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: /usrmove? - about the future
On Fri, Feb 10, 2012 at 8:49 AM, Jon Ciesla limburg...@gmail.com wrote: I've been yum upgrading since FC1. I didn't see that. I was also running a mysql server. Maybe you should file a bug report noting that yum upgrade worked for you. I personally think that is a bug. unsupported workflows should be broken for all users, to avoid people like you encouraging other unfortunate souls into relying on it and then getting mad when it doesn't work for them. -jefonly sort of kiddingspaleta -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: /usrmove? - about the future
On 02/10/2012 06:32 PM, Adam Williamson wrote: systemd was explicitly written to be 100% sysv-compatible Mostly compatible, but not 100%. http://www.freedesktop.org/wiki/Software/systemd/Incompatibilities Michal -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: /usrmove? - about the future
Am 10.02.2012 18:49, schrieb Jef Spaleta: On Fri, Feb 10, 2012 at 8:41 AM, Reindl Harald h.rei...@thelounge.net wrote: no i can not because it is a one-shot thing to do yum distro-sync and so i had no time for a bugrport while other more important things like mysqld were horrible broken Let me strongly suggest, that unfiled problems will never get fixed because you cannot assume your workflow is part of anyone elses prerelease testing. Let me further stridently suggest that if you or any user insist on using an upgrade path which is stated as a matter of policy as unsupported so this policy has to be adopted to the real life damned you can i imagine you upgrade a virtual production server with Preupgrade/Anaconda? this is only a bad joke while if Fedora put more care in yum-upgrade and supports it this does well while services are up i ahve done UNDRETS of dist-upgrades with yum while services were up and most time of prepare this is revert/change fedora mistakes made all the time and yes there are servers which can be down the 30 secods of the reboot as they do also on a normal kernel update Preupgrade/ANacodna is UNACCETABLE on any important machine because it is not controllable while yum is if oyu have a clone of your machine to test and playaround before go to the procution one these policies should corrected and whoever wrote them should come back to reality signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: /usrmove? - about the future
Am 10.02.2012 18:49, schrieb Jon Ciesla: On Fri, Feb 10, 2012 at 11:42 AM, Jef Spaleta jspal...@gmail.com wrote: On Fri, Feb 10, 2012 at 8:36 AM, Dan Williams d...@redhat.com wrote: In any case, badmouthing systemd for an upgrade bug where it actually works fine *when you're really running F15* doesn't seem right. I wouldn't have had this problem if it'd installed off the Live CD or done a fresh install. Shrug, I don't make it a point to do yum based upgrades across release boundaries so that would explain why i didn't encounter it. Did anyone doing and testing the not supported upgrade dance to F15 bother filing it at any point? Obviously people use it regardless of what the support policy is. I would imagine one of them would file it as a market for other people who aren't going to follow policy. I've been yum upgrading since FC1. I didn't see that. I was also running a mysql server. BOAh mysqld has NOTHING to do with the yum upgrade mysqld in F15 worked only on baby-systems where nothing other relies on mysqld but not on machines having tons of services rely in a init-process who fires them up after mysqld id reday for connections how often havce i to repeat this here? signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: /usrmove? - about the future
On Fri, Feb 10, 2012 at 11:52 AM, Jef Spaleta jspal...@gmail.com wrote: On Fri, Feb 10, 2012 at 8:49 AM, Jon Ciesla limburg...@gmail.com wrote: I've been yum upgrading since FC1. I didn't see that. I was also running a mysql server. Maybe you should file a bug report noting that yum upgrade worked for you. I personally think that is a bug. unsupported workflows should be broken for all users, to avoid people like you encouraging other unfortunate souls into relying on it and then getting mad when it doesn't work for them. Dammit. I knew I was doing something wrong. I'd better set those machines on fire. (runs off to lower the EVR on all his packages in rawhide.) -J -jefonly sort of kiddingspaleta -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel -- in your fear, seek only peace in your fear, seek only love -d. bowie -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: /usrmove? - about the future
Am 10.02.2012 18:49, schrieb Rahul Sundaram: On 02/10/2012 11:11 PM, Reindl Harald wrote: no i can not because it is a one-shot thing to do yum distro-sync and so i had no time for a bugrport while other more important things like mysqld were horrible broken Considering the number of mails in this list where you have repeated the problem, I think there is time now to file a bug report and try and get the problem fixed. It is a far more efficient way. jesus christ we are talking about the future and what did go wrong in the past - why should anybody file a bugrpeort for yum-upgrade from F14 to F15 this time where F14 is EOL and you become as answer yum upgrade is not supported (due dumb pilicies away from real life) signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: /usrmove? - about the future
Am 10.02.2012 18:52, schrieb Jef Spaleta: On Fri, Feb 10, 2012 at 8:49 AM, Jon Ciesla limburg...@gmail.com wrote: I've been yum upgrading since FC1. I didn't see that. I was also running a mysql server. Maybe you should file a bug report noting that yum upgrade worked for you. I personally think that is a bug. unsupported workflows should be broken for all users idiotic statement yum-upgrade should be supported because it works normally much smoother than a horrible Anaconda/Preupgrade if someone did not a mistake why? because yum is in use the whole time, Anaconda only one-shot for upgrades signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: /usrmove? - about the future
On Fri, Feb 10, 2012 at 8:56 AM, Jon Ciesla limburg...@gmail.com wrote: Dammit. I knew I was doing something wrong. I'd better set those machines on fire. youtube video or it didnt happen. -jef -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: /usrmove? - about the future
On Fri, 2012-02-10 at 18:39 +0100, Michal Schmidt wrote: On 02/10/2012 06:33 PM, Bruno Wolff III wrote: It seems pretty common that updating systemd causes problems with the next shutdown. I don't know why and it is a pain to reproduce since it doesn't happen again on the next reboot. Did you see the problem with updates within a stable Fedora release? Or do you mean updates in Rawhide / Branched? The one-time case - 'the first time you go from systemd X to systemd Y, the system won't shut down cleanly' - does seem to affect stable release upgrades, yeah. But it's a one-time thing, it works fine on all following boots. It would be nice if systemd could eliminate this in future, though. If this is what Harald is referring to, I don't disagree with him, but I thought he was talking about some kind of ongoing bug where he could *never* get an F15 system to shut down properly. -- Adam Williamson Fedora QA Community Monkey IRC: adamw | Twitter: AdamW_Fedora | identi.ca: adamwfedora http://www.happyassassin.net -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: /usrmove? - about the future
On 02/10/2012 11:27 PM, Reindl Harald wrote: jesus christ we are talking about the future and what did go wrong in the past - why should anybody file a bugrpeort for yum-upgrade from F14 to F15 this time where F14 is EOL and you become as answer yum upgrade is not supported (due dumb pilicies away from real life) I suggest you change your tone if you want your points to be heard. If you can't be polite, please stop posting till you can. My point is that, you continue to bring up past issues but you have not even filed a bug report on several of the problems you keep talking about. It is not fair to expect maintainers or developers to fix unreported problems. Rahul -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: /usrmove? - about the future
On 02/10/2012 06:55 PM, Reindl Harald wrote: mysqld in F15 worked only on baby-systems where nothing other relies on mysqld but not on machines having tons of services rely in a init-process who fires them up after mysqld id reday for connections I am aware of this mysqld-related bugreport of yours: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=714486 I'll let the readers form their own opinion about it. Michal -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: /usrmove? - about the future
On Fri, 2012-02-10 at 08:42 -0900, Jef Spaleta wrote: I noticed it wasn't list as a common gotcha on the F15 commons bug page that is maintained to handle these sorts of quibbles. Do we allow for recognition of the not supported upgrade dance in the common bugs information as a policy Yes. or is it the upgrade path that must not be named? No. Anything that people commonly encounter is fodder for commonbugs (though if it's to do with a third-party package or driver, or something from RPM Fusion, or Flash, you need to be somewhat careful with wording to ensure you don't give the impression Fedora 'supports' or 'promotes' any of those things). Again, it's a wiki page, please do go ahead and add things to it. I'd much rather not be the only person (or one of the few people) who edits that page. -- Adam Williamson Fedora QA Community Monkey IRC: adamw | Twitter: AdamW_Fedora | identi.ca: adamwfedora http://www.happyassassin.net -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: /usrmove? - about the future
On Fri, Feb 10, 2012 at 11:55 AM, Reindl Harald h.rei...@thelounge.net wrote: Am 10.02.2012 18:49, schrieb Jon Ciesla: On Fri, Feb 10, 2012 at 11:42 AM, Jef Spaleta jspal...@gmail.com wrote: On Fri, Feb 10, 2012 at 8:36 AM, Dan Williams d...@redhat.com wrote: In any case, badmouthing systemd for an upgrade bug where it actually works fine *when you're really running F15* doesn't seem right. I wouldn't have had this problem if it'd installed off the Live CD or done a fresh install. Shrug, I don't make it a point to do yum based upgrades across release boundaries so that would explain why i didn't encounter it. Did anyone doing and testing the not supported upgrade dance to F15 bother filing it at any point? Obviously people use it regardless of what the support policy is. I would imagine one of them would file it as a market for other people who aren't going to follow policy. I've been yum upgrading since FC1. I didn't see that. I was also running a mysql server. BOAh mysqld has NOTHING to do with the yum upgrade mysqld in F15 worked only on baby-systems where nothing other relies on mysqld but not on machines having tons of services rely in a init-process who fires them up after mysqld id reday for connections Excuse me? Baby systems? Do you know what my systems were running? Which services I had? My configurations? I apologize if my experience was in some way different from yours. But I had quite a bit running on the systems in question. My process was essentially: update fedora-release* yum update -y yum clean all reboot systemctl start foo.service and systemctl enable foo.service for each service I needed to start my default. Which I had recorded for each machine. Profit! I'm truly sorry this didn't work for you, but there's no sense attacking me because it did for me. -J how often havce i to repeat this here? -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel -- in your fear, seek only peace in your fear, seek only love -d. bowie -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: /usrmove? - about the future
On 02/10/2012 07:00 PM, Adam Williamson wrote: The one-time case - 'the first time you go from systemd X to systemd Y, the system won't shut down cleanly' - does seem to affect stable release upgrades, yeah. If anyone knows the values of X and Y where it's reproducible, please let us know. Michal -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: /usrmove? - about the future
On Fri, Feb 10, 2012 at 11:59 AM, Jef Spaleta jspal...@gmail.com wrote: On Fri, Feb 10, 2012 at 8:56 AM, Jon Ciesla limburg...@gmail.com wrote: Dammit. I knew I was doing something wrong. I'd better set those machines on fire. youtube video or it didnt happen. No video camera. But I have a birthday coming up. . . -jef -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel -- in your fear, seek only peace in your fear, seek only love -d. bowie -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: /usrmove? - about the future
On Fri, 2012-02-10 at 18:54 +0100, Reindl Harald wrote: Am 10.02.2012 18:49, schrieb Jef Spaleta: On Fri, Feb 10, 2012 at 8:41 AM, Reindl Harald h.rei...@thelounge.net wrote: no i can not because it is a one-shot thing to do yum distro-sync and so i had no time for a bugrport while other more important things like mysqld were horrible broken Let me strongly suggest, that unfiled problems will never get fixed because you cannot assume your workflow is part of anyone elses prerelease testing. Let me further stridently suggest that if you or any user insist on using an upgrade path which is stated as a matter of policy as unsupported so this policy has to be adopted to the real life damned you can i imagine you upgrade a virtual production server with Preupgrade/Anaconda? this is only a bad joke while if Fedora put more care in yum-upgrade and supports it this does well while services are up You're not supposed to be running Fedora on production servers. That is not what it's for. I do this too, but when something in Fedora makes it a bit inconvenient, I don't whine and throw all my toys from the perambulator, because I know I'm using Fedora for something it's not entirely intended for, and so I accept the pain and deal with it. It's like using a Lamborghini as your daily runabout: you can do it, but you probably shouldn't whine about how LAMBORGHINIS SUCK if you chip the undercarriage on a speed bump. -- Adam Williamson Fedora QA Community Monkey IRC: adamw | Twitter: AdamW_Fedora | identi.ca: adamwfedora http://www.happyassassin.net -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: /usrmove? - about the future
On Fri, Feb 10, 2012 at 08:42:08AM -0900, Jef Spaleta wrote: On Fri, Feb 10, 2012 at 8:36 AM, Dan Williams d...@redhat.com wrote: In any case, badmouthing systemd for an upgrade bug where it actually works fine *when you're really running F15* doesn't seem right. I wouldn't have had this problem if it'd installed off the Live CD or done a fresh install. Shrug, I don't make it a point to do yum based upgrades across release boundaries so that would explain why i didn't encounter it. Did anyone doing and testing the not supported upgrade dance to F15 bother filing it at any point? Obviously people use it regardless of what the support policy is. I would imagine one of them would file it as a market for other people who aren't going to follow policy. I noticed it wasn't list as a common gotcha on the F15 commons bug page that is maintained to handle these sorts of quibbles. Do we allow for recognition of the not supported upgrade dance in the common bugs information as a policy or is it the upgrade path that must not be named? At least for the not named portion -- it should get documented here: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Upgrading_Fedora_using_yum Preferably with a link to bugzilla as it would be a bug that could potentially get fixed. -Toshio pgpPHLmHQRmgN.pgp Description: PGP signature -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: /usrmove? - about the future
Am 10.02.2012 19:00, schrieb Rahul Sundaram: On 02/10/2012 11:27 PM, Reindl Harald wrote: I suggest you change your tone if you want your points to be heard. If you can't be polite, please stop posting till you can. My point is that, you continue to bring up past issues but you have not even filed a bug report on several of the problems you keep talking about. It is not fair to expect maintainers or developers to fix unreported problems. i have rpeorted A TON of bugs where services was not converted to systemd many of them are also not converted until now there are even people runnign around and filing patches for the transition and maintainers ignroe bugrpeorts from release to release and you think my tone is the problem? maintainers which DO NOT maintain their pakcages, ignroing bugreports, ignoring patches and tthe missing authority forcing them to do their job or stop them maintain the package in the future are the real problem if with F16 all packages would have been retired which are not coberted to systemd-units you would have been wondered how fast tranisiton goes - but as long nobody is interested getting things done instead of opening new features nothing will change signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: /usrmove? - about the future
On Fri, 2012-02-10 at 19:02 +0100, Michal Schmidt wrote: On 02/10/2012 07:00 PM, Adam Williamson wrote: The one-time case - 'the first time you go from systemd X to systemd Y, the system won't shut down cleanly' - does seem to affect stable release upgrades, yeah. If anyone knows the values of X and Y where it's reproducible, please let us know. Unfortunately I don't recall :( But it's definitely happened to me twice as I've tracked Rawhide on my desktop. I'll try and be more precise if it happens again; I always previously just assumed the devs knew about it. -- Adam Williamson Fedora QA Community Monkey IRC: adamw | Twitter: AdamW_Fedora | identi.ca: adamwfedora http://www.happyassassin.net -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: /usrmove? - about the future
On Fri, Feb 10, 2012 at 9:07 AM, Adam Williamson awill...@redhat.com wrote: On Fri, 2012-02-10 at 19:02 +0100, Michal Schmidt wrote: On 02/10/2012 07:00 PM, Adam Williamson wrote: The one-time case - 'the first time you go from systemd X to systemd Y, the system won't shut down cleanly' - does seem to affect stable release upgrades, yeah. If anyone knows the values of X and Y where it's reproducible, please let us know. Unfortunately I don't recall :( But it's definitely happened to me twice as I've tracked Rawhide on my desktop. I'll try and be more precise if it happens again; I always previously just assumed the devs knew about it. What is the exact symptoms encapsulated in not shutdown cleanly? -jefUnrelated story: This week I watched in horror as my wife's F16 desktop machine would not depower. Selecting poweroff from g3 shell or gdm would cause it to reboot. front panel power button also caused a reboot instead of a power down. Repeatedly over and over again...frelling thing just refused to power down. Had to cut ac power to the computer (with no change in bios settings) to get it to actually fully power off. Reapplied ac power, stayed off like it was suppose to. Front panel powered it on as expected. Once it experienced that single full power off, subsequent power off requests of all type worked again. No idea wtf was going on there. spaleta -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: /usrmove? - about the future - WTF?
Am 10.02.2012 19:01, schrieb Michal Schmidt: On 02/10/2012 06:55 PM, Reindl Harald wrote: mysqld in F15 worked only on baby-systems where nothing other relies on mysqld but not on machines having tons of services rely in a init-process who fires them up after mysqld id reday for connections I am aware of this mysqld-related bugreport of yours: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=714486 I'll let the readers form their own opinion about it. so search the other one where i tried to create a working services over days and weeks instead this one take https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=714426 to let the readers form their own opinion if they see what amount of work i tried to put in the mysqld service this bugreport demonstrates perfectly why it is idiotic to change the init-system isolated from the services because you see here that long after release nobody knew how to act with mysqld nobody knew if systemd is lacking features, how to deal or not do real with socket-activation and so on and that is why it was impossible to get systemd in a ready state into F15 because in many cases nobody has thought about what is really needed because nobody started to convert the services AND THIS IS WHAT I CALL THE WRONG DIRECTION OF DVELOPMENT THIS HAS NOT WORKED THIS DOES NOT WORK THIS WILL NEVER WORK thsi works only if your definition of quality is far away from mine signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: /usrmove? - about the future
On 02/10/2012 11:37 PM, Reindl Harald wrote: and you think my tone is the problem? Yes, I think your tone is a severe problem that needs to be corrected if you want to anyone to take your points seriously. There are several problems which you continue to talk about where you haven't filed a bug report or your bug report has been shown to be invalid but you continue repeating yourself all the time. This is not the way to convince anyone. I suggest you change your approach Rahul -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: /usrmove? - about the future
Am 10.02.2012 19:15, schrieb Jef Spaleta: On Fri, Feb 10, 2012 at 9:07 AM, Adam Williamson awill...@redhat.com wrote: On Fri, 2012-02-10 at 19:02 +0100, Michal Schmidt wrote: On 02/10/2012 07:00 PM, Adam Williamson wrote: The one-time case - 'the first time you go from systemd X to systemd Y, the system won't shut down cleanly' - does seem to affect stable release upgrades, yeah. If anyone knows the values of X and Y where it's reproducible, please let us know. Unfortunately I don't recall :( But it's definitely happened to me twice as I've tracked Rawhide on my desktop. I'll try and be more precise if it happens again; I always previously just assumed the devs knew about it. What is the exact symptoms encapsulated in not shutdown cleanly? can not connect to systembus or some connection refused somewhat in this direction repaired with kill 1 but it is a little hard to google for a solution if you are sitting in runlevel3 in front of the one and only machine you have currently signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: /usrmove? - about the future
Once upon a time, Reindl Harald h.rei...@thelounge.net said: i have rpeorted A TON of bugs where services was not converted to systemd many of them are also not converted until now Are you doing this because there is a functionality problem? Systemd is explicitly (mostly) backwards compatible with SysV-style init scripts, because they are going to exist for a long time to come (at least in third-party and vendor packages). IIRC, systemd was introduced without any mandate to switch 100% of the init scripts. In the vast majority of cases, there is no functional difference between a SysV init script and a systemd unit file, so changing for the sake of change (when there is no other package maintenance required) is busy work and unnecessary churn. and you think my tone is the problem? Well, yes. Filing bugs when there's no actual bug, and being rude about it, tends to not motivate maintainers to make changes. I didn't change my one package with a SysV init script because (a) I didn't see any gain from it and (b) I knew I planned to retire it for F17 anyway (as it is no longer needed). Someone else came along and did it anyway, but that was their choice of how to spend their time. -- Chris Adams cmad...@hiwaay.net Systems and Network Administrator - HiWAAY Internet Services I don't speak for anybody but myself - that's enough trouble. -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: /usrmove? - about the future
On 02/10/2012 05:57 PM, Reindl Harald wrote: yum upgrade is not supported (due dumb pilicies away from real life) With my QA hat on I can say with confidence that this will never be officially supported. There is no way in hell that QA can test every possible upgrade path with every combination of package we ship in the distribution. I'm frankly amazed that the anaconda/pre-upgrade path got officially supported in the first place and at the same time a bit curious how that came to be because I'm pretty sure officially supporting that was not officially voted upon in the QA community. Users might finally get a proper fall back solution with btrfs ( via snapshot ) for upgrades but that's about as far as it goes with upgrading support I would say. Users should really view upgrading as more as yes you can but you still have to fix any brokenness that might result from that upgrade. Start blocking features or newer project releases that might be incompatible to their previous configuration file format for that set project is just madness as well as requiring them to be upgrade compatible. Just my 0.02 cents... JBG -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: /usrmove? - about the future
Am 10.02.2012 19:18, schrieb Chris Adams: Once upon a time, Reindl Harald h.rei...@thelounge.net said: i have rpeorted A TON of bugs where services was not converted to systemd many of them are also not converted until now Are you doing this because there is a functionality problem? Systemd is explicitly (mostly) backwards compatible with SysV-style init scripts, because they are going to exist for a long time to come (at least in third-party and vendor packages). IIRC, systemd was introduced without any mandate to switch 100% of the init scripts. it is proven that it is only MOSTLY comatible and you can https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=714426 only the egg-dance around mysqld shows that it was wrong to bring in systemd without enforce convertig, read the bugreport carefully so you may understand that half of the time nobody knew how to do with systemd currently nobody knows how much services are only working in default configurations and with luck since the order of start/stop is onot always the same nobody knows what sevices are hardly or not conertable currently because nobody tried it and in the worst case if oyu start you find out missing features / design problems in systemd which can only be cleaned up while systemd-debelopers working hand in hand with packagers what did and does not happen, and even if it happens now it is way too late and should have been done BEFORE release it as feature it is proven not comatible because since F15 reboot/shutdown a machine running VMwareWorkstation geusts leads in kill them hard instead suspend and i spent many time to try services before vmware to suspend which is all working ina dry run but if you call reboot the cmware-service is stopped too soon and my only explaination is that systemd is designed for doing things fast but not safe! signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: /usrmove? - about the future
On 02/10/2012 10:05 AM, Adam Williamson wrote: You're not supposed to be running Fedora on production servers. That is not what it's for. Sez who? http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/SIGs/Server -Scott -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Re: /usrmove? - about the future
Am 10.02.2012 19:39, schrieb Scott Doty: On 02/10/2012 10:05 AM, Adam Williamson wrote: You're not supposed to be running Fedora on production servers. That is not what it's for. Sez who? http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/SIGs/Server not only that saying any distribution is not supposed to be used at server says this fistribution is horrible broken at all and going the wrong direction the trend goes to many normal users using not a real PC at all, so maybe in the near future linux will mostle be used only on servers and workstations of IT professionals beside tablets saying the distribution is not supposed to be used on servers is nearly the same as saying the distribution has no future at all signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
