Packaging:Minutes20080520

From FedoraProject

Jump to: navigation, search

Contents

Fedora Packaging Committee Meeting of {2008-05-20}

Present

  • DenisLeroy (delero)
  • DominikMierzejewski (Rathann)
  • JasonTibbitts (tibbs)
  • RalfCorsepius (racor)
  • RexDieter (rdieter)
  • TomCallaway (spot)
  • ToshioKuratomi (abadger1999)

Writeups

The following drafts have been accepted by FESCO and are to be written into the guidelines:

  • Recording the upstream status of patches

http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackagingDrafts/PatchUpstreamStatus

  • Mandatory verification of desktop files

http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackagingDrafts/DesktopVerify


Votes

The following proposals were considered:

  • Withdrawing the JPackage naming exception
  • The current exception allowing "jpp" in release strings is at http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/JPackagePolicy
  • Accepted (7 - 0)
  • Voting for: spot delero Rathann abadger1999 rdieter racor tibbs (all committee members present voted for)

Other Discussions

  • A draft is being worked up regarding the use of alternatives.

If you are experienced with the use of alternatives and would like to give input on the issues surrounding alternatives and packaging, please join us on the fedora-packaging mailing list.

IRC Logs

* spot is here, one sec 12:01
spot aaanyways. 12:02
spot who else is around for FPC 12:02
* delero here 12:03
* tibbs here 12:03
rdieter here 12:05
racor here 12:05
spot abadger1999, racor? 12:05
* spot looks for the others 12:06
abadger1999 here 12:06
spot Rathann said he was going to miss it 12:06
spot i don't know where Xavier or Hans are. 12:07
spot ok, first item on the agenda 12:07
spot (get your fire proof vest on...) 12:07
spot Removing the JPackage naming exception. 12:07
* dbhole_ tests his flamethrower 12:08
spot I posit that three viable alternatives to using the "jpp" repotag in Fedora packages have been identified. 12:08
spot 1. A yum group exclude plugin 12:08
spot 2. The yum-priorities plugin 12:08
spot 3. Provides, as documented by f13 on the Jpackage mailing list 12:08
spot Thus, the terms of the exception have been met. There exist functional workarounds for the technical issues that merited the exception. 12:09
spot I propose that we vote to lift the exception. 12:09
tibbs So, I've a question. 12:09
overholt I think you're causing work for JPackage (unnecessarily IMO) with this 12:10
dbhole_ #1 cannot be used because it will require jpackage to change their packages as well, to set the same group 12:10
overholt and it doesn't help with the perception that Fedora has no concern for stuff outside Fedora 12:10
tibbs Were the requirements in the document we were given the only requirements? 12:10
spot dbhole_: and yet, #1 is what was asked for. 12:10
--> Rathann has joined this channel (n=rathann@235-goc-28.acn.waw.pl). 12:10
overholt it makes us all look like self-centred jerks 12:10
Rathann o/ present 12:10
tibbs It sounds like there are other requirement we weren't told about. 12:11
Rathann sorry for being late 12:11
racor AFAIU, neither #1 nor #2 work on the rpm-level => these are non-options, IMO 12:11
overholt tibbs, well, there was the months-long thread about it back in the day 12:11
spot this is an issue of ensuring clean rpm ordering in Fedora. 12:11
delero racor: why is a yum-level solution not good enough ? 12:11
dbhole_ spot: Not it was not. What was asked for was something we can do, and only WE have to do, that allow us to meet all the requirements that caused the exception in the first place. It is hardly right to be telling jpackage to alter 500+ packages because *we* want it 12:11
overholt clean rpm ordering was ensured with the scheme, was it not? 12:11
racor rpm -U / -i MUST work 12:11
spot dbhole_: again, no one is asking Jpackage to do anything. 12:11
tibbs I could care less about that. We asked for the full list of requirements, we got a list, and now it seems that we can't make a decision based on that list. 12:11
spot I feel that we've met the terms of the exception to our naming guidelines 12:12
spot possibly even gone above and beyond what is required. 12:12
abadger1999 dbhole_: If JPackage has to change their groups, then the list of technical requirements we were given is not complete. 12:12
overholt or the solution didn't take them into account 12:13
overholt hence my earlier point 12:13
spot this is no different from importing packages from any other repo which conflict with the Fedora Guidelines 12:13
spot the naming guidelines exist for a specific reason, to ensure clean rpm transactions with n-v-r ordering 12:13
overholt which you fixed with the scheme 12:14
overholt *you* came up with 12:14
spot overholt: as a temporary workaround 12:14
spot it was always intended to be temporary until better workarounds were found 12:14
overholt spot, fine, but your new 'solution' screws people over outside of Fedora 12:14
spot better workarounds have been found 12:14
tibbs Honestly, is Fedora allowed to choose its own packaging rules? 12:14
overholt better in some people's eyes 12:14
rdieter "... to ensure clean rpm transactions" what if that's not valid? 12:14
spot overholt: it doesn't screw anyone to remove three characters. 12:15
overholt I really don't care about "jpp" itself 12:15
abadger1999 overholt: Tell us what the new requirement is that screws people over. 12:15
overholt I'm mostly annoyed with the way this has been rammed through 12:15
rdieter rpmdev-vercmp 0 1 2 0 1 2jpp says: 0:1-2jpp is newer , isn't that what we want? 12:15
dbhole_ spot: And how is #1 supposed to address pre existing packages? If I installed the java stack on my system at install time and wish to move away later, it would not work (atleast I don't see how it could) 12:15
abadger1999 If we don't know the requirements we can't address them. 12:15
spot rammed? this has been a YEAR in coming. 12:15
overholt abadger1999, Jpackage has no time to react and implement this 12:15
tibbs What the hell? "Rammed"?} 12:15
overholt it has felt very much like a personal vendetta the whole time 12:15
abadger1999 overholt: As far as I can see they don't have to implement anything. 12:15
* spot sighs 12:15
abadger1999 overholt: That's the problem. 12:15
spot this is not a vendetta. let that go on the record. 12:15
overholt abadger1999, I read their mails as they do 12:15
abadger1999 overholt: Tell us what the requirement is that they feel they have to implement for. 12:15
spot this is just about Fedora being internally consistent. 12:15
overholt I didn't say it was a vendetta 12:15
overholt I said it felt like a vendetta 12:16
overholt and if *feels* like we're unnecessarily forcing stuff on others 12:16
overholt it just feels wrong 12:16
overholt yes, cleanliness is nice 12:16
overholt and consistency 12:16
spot overholt: your feelings are noted. 12:16
overholt and necesssary, even 12:16
tibbs What stuff are we forcing on others? 12:16
tibbs Honestly, I don't see it. 12:16
abadger1999 tibbs: +1. 12:16
overholt we're making it so that JPackage developers can't use Fedoora, aren't we? 12:16
spot overholt: not at all. 12:16
rdieter no 12:16
abadger1999 overholt: Not that I can see.... 12:16
overholt then I guess I read the thread wrong 12:16
overholt sorry 12:17
abadger1999 And that's what you have to explain to us. 12:17
tibbs What, we have a user list and prevent them from logging in or something? 12:17
overholt haha 12:17
abadger1999 If you can explain that then we'll know what's wrong with the change. 12:17
* overholt notes that he's not a JPackage developer 12:17
spot the only thing we're doing is not permitting Fedora packages to use "jpp" in their Release. 12:17
abadger1999 If you can't then we'll vote on this. 12:17
spot that is it. 100%. 12:17
overholt I must have mis-interpreted the thread 12:17
overholt carry on 12:17
spot FPC members, are you ready to vote on this? 12:18
<-- overholt has left this channel ("Leaving"). 12:18
dbhole_ spot: of the options 1,2,3, 1 and 2 cannot deal with pre existing packages, so they are out 12:18
abadger1999 I hate voting thinking that I'm missing something 12:18
dbhole_ spot: And 3 is very much a hack 12:19
abadger1999 but if no one explains the problem they think exists I think we have to. 12:19
dbhole_ I would like to solve this _properly_ by allowing a decent grouping system in rpm 12:19
spot +1 to removing the exception. 12:19
dbhole_ that is what was agreed on with the exception 12:19
--> fitzsim has joined this channel (n=fitzsim@209.167.232.100). 12:19
dbhole_ that it will be removed when a solution is available 12:19
dbhole_ imo a hack is not a solution 12:19
delero +1 to removing the exception also 12:19
dbhole_ and I partially agree with what overholt said.. this is being rammed through for no reason 12:20
dbhole_ no new technical reason has come up that necessites this, outside of some specific individuals wanting it removed 12:20
spot dbhole_: believe me when i say that i cannot ram anything through both FPC and FESCo. 12:20
tibbs "no reason"? 12:20
abadger1999 dbhole_: 1) Define pre-existing package 12:20
abadger1999 In JPackage or in Fedora 12:20
tibbs Why is it that the reasons we have stated amount to "no reason"? 12:21
dbhole_ abadger1999: During installed, if the java stack is installed on the machine, the yum exclusion plugins will not be able to allow grouping of the "java packages" 12:21
abadger1999 dbhole_: So what is a pre-existing package? 12:21
dbhole_ tibbs: sorry, I should perhaps clarify. I understand that Fedora wants all packages to conform to a specific guideline. What I meant was that no new technical reason has come up since the exclusion was agreed upon 12:22
tibbs The exception was always intended to be temporary. 12:22
abadger1999 dbhole_: The exclusion was forced upon us with the explicit statement that it is temporary until another method of doing it was found. 12:23
Rathann dbhole_: but the exclusion had a timeout, had it not? 12:23
dbhole_ abadger1999: Well, say I am installing fedora, I select all packages to be installed, which includes a package, say "xalan-j2" which is a fedora/jpackage common package. The yum exclusion plugins proposed will not be able to mitigate this, as they can only exclude packages when new ones are being installed 12:23
Rathann dbhole_: so what's the problem in your case? 12:23
delero dbhole_: a repo priority plugin would solve this though woudln't it ? 12:24
tibbs I don't understand why you'd even install something that you don't want to be installed. 12:24
dbhole_ Rathann: No, the excludes page states that it will be revisited when a proper solution is found. I don't think one has been. We are using (proposing) workarounds and hacks .. which would be fine if there was a new, technical reason to remove "jpp". But there is no new, technical reason to remove it that I can see 12:24
Rathann dbhole_: IMHO there was never a good reason to have it there 12:25
spot I think there are two flaws in how we originally handled the exception. We did not put a time limit on it, nor did we define clearly who would be able to define a proper solution. 12:25
abadger1999 dbhole_: The use of the "jpp" tag is temporary. Once there is no longer a technical need as defined in this document, it will be removed from all Fedora packages. 12:25
tibbs I get the impression that if we accept this line of reasoning we'll simply never be "allowed" to decide on our own internally consistent packaging guidelines. 12:25
dbhole_ tibbs: You are right, in most cases it would. What I am saying is that it limits options. If one were to install a java package at install time (for whatever reason), they are basically stuck 12:25
spot tibbs: i agree. 12:25
delero dbhole_: i don't agree there for solution 2 12:26
spot vote stands at +2 (+3 with Rathann's mail in vote) 12:26
dbhole_ tibbs: not true. If rpm query options properly support grouping, the exception can be removed , and it would be the right solution 12:26
Rathann spot: I still vote +1 :) 12:26
abadger1999 vote to remove +1 12:26
rdieter +1 to removing the exception 12:26
tibbs dbhole_: You say they're "basically stuck" but I really don't see how jpp in the name actually gets you unstuck. 12:27
racor +1 to removing the exception 12:27
spot tibbs, racor, we're at +5, but I would like your vote on the record, so no one accuses me of shenanigans. 12:27
tibbs I mean, you uninstall the package. 12:27
tibbs I really wanted to see some kind of agreement. 12:27
dbhole_ tibbs: how is one supposed to know that is a jpp package, though? 12:27
--> couf has joined this channel (n=bart@fedora/couf). 12:27
dbhole_ tibbs: currently, the release string is the only one that signifies the origin 12:28
spot dbhole_: its worth noting that it is a Fedora package. 12:28
dbhole_ spot: We need interoperability with jpp. and the goodwill of that community. We simply don't have enough java packagers. I own 61, and with 30 new coming my way 12:28
spot tibbs: would you like to vote? 12:28
dbhole_ 91 packages with 0 time alloted 12:29
--> overholt has joined this channel (n=overholt@209.167.232.100). 12:29
tibbs I just haven't seen anything which would convince me to vote any other way than to remove the naming exception. 12:29
tibbs I mean, if it all comes down to knowing which packages you need to uninstall when you want to replace a bunch of packages in the distro with other packages, then it seems pretty obvious. 12:30
abadger1999 dbhole_: You need to tell us why we're sacrificing goodwill by making changes to the _Fedora_Packages_. 12:30
overholt I'd like to apologize for my comments earlier if they were rude or inappropriate. I only meant to give my impression of things and not state fact. FWIW, I think you all do a great job and this was a tough situation. I apologize again. 12:30
spot overholt: no worries. this is an emotionally charged issue. 12:30
tibbs I really don't understand why the solution isn't "see which packages are in the jpackage repo, uninstall all of them". 12:30
* spot isn't entirely sure why... but still. 12:30
overholt spot, agreed (on both counts) 12:30
dbhole_ abadger1999: There is no easy way to switch stacks. The current one works, and I am afraid that the new ones will not work as well under all circumstances that the current one works under 12:30
abadger1999 overholt: No problem. We're in a tough spot as people are yelling at us but none of the yelling has seemed to have a technical basis yet. 12:31
tibbs Anyway, I'll vote +1 for removing the exception. 12:31
overholt abadger1999, yeah, it's hard. 12:31
* rdieter thinks f13's proposed solution has the most promise. 12:31
spot ok, all votes are on the record. We'll pass this hot potato to FESCo for ratification. 12:31
delero i prefer a solution at the yum-level personally 12:31
* abadger1999 likes repo priorities. 12:31
delero since this is fundemantally a repo management issue 12:32
Rathann exactly so 12:32
spot believe it or not, this is the only item on today's agenda. 12:32
spot the floor is now open for any other issues that are not the jpp naming exception. 12:32
abadger1999 dbhole_: The current one does not work. I pointed that out in one of my emails but no one addressed it. 12:32
dbhole_ abadger1999: What cases does it fail under? (sorry, I must have missed it.. that thread is rather long :/) 12:33
* Rathann would like to excuse himself and tend to other pressing issues 12:33
* overholt leaves with a red face and his tail between his legs for being a jerk. sorry for being so hot-headed. 12:33
<-- overholt has left this channel ("Leaving"). 12:33
Rathann thanks and bye 12:34
<-- Rathann has left this channel ("Leaving."). 12:34
tibbs Actually, I really don't get how having jpp in all of the release strings actually helps you at all. If the fedora packages had "notjpp" in them then you'd actually be able to tell the java packages you have installed that didn't come from jpp. 12:34
tibbs Fortunately nobody's proposed that. 12:34
dbhole_ tibbs: because the current way worked until now, there was never a need 12:35
dbhole_ and it still works 12:35
tibbs For some definition of "works" which has yet to be explained by anyone in a way that allows me to understand it. 12:35
spot ok, i'm not hearing any other topics. 12:36
abadger1999 I want to replace all Fedora java packages on my system with JPackage. I can't tell which packages are from Fedora and which are from JPackage because they both have *jpp* in the release tag. 12:36
tibbs spot: Well, the alternatives thing was interesting. 12:36
tibbs I don't really know what the proper answer is there. 12:36
spot tibbs: indeed, but the draft is not ready for that yet. 12:36
spot Rathann is working on a draft 12:36
delero is there a tool that manages the alternatives sym links ? 12:36
delero i.e. is the /etc/alternative symlink only set by rpm ? 12:36
spot delero: alternatives does it for you. 12:37
delero spot: ah ok thx 12:37
spot /usr/sbin/alternatives 12:37
rdieter man alternatives 12:37
dbhole_ abadger1999: right, but you can remove *jpp* easily enough, and then yum install from a specific repo, with an excludes *jpp* in the yum conf for the other repo 12:37
* delero wonders about /etc/alternatives/gcc 12:37
spot delero: eeeek. 12:37
racor delero: whatfor? 12:37
delero we have 3 packages trying to override that right now 12:37
delero distcc, cccache and icecream 12:38
dbhole_ spot: so which of the 3 solutions will be proposed to address the issue? 12:38
spot dbhole_: honestly, thats up to the Fedora Java packagers. 12:39
tibbs Jeez, just query the "specific repo", remove any packages from the system that exist there, and then install the ones you want. 12:39
tibbs Sure, you remove too much, but removing anything with jpp in the name does the same thing. 12:39
tibbs Was this whole thing really over something so amazingly trivial? 12:40
abadger1999 dbhole_: So... that doesn't change and, in fact becomes less hacky. Remove all java packages and then yum install with specific repo tagged with repo priorities. 12:40
rdieter tibbs: +1, and a miracle the exemption lasted this long 12:41
dbhole_ tibbs: hmm, of all the things.. I cannot believe your solution was not proposed on that huge thread :/ 12:42
tibbs Now, I can't promise that the tools make it quite that easy, but if not then they can be trivially made to do so. 12:43
abadger1999 Re: alternatives. If multiple packages %ghost the symlinks will they be removed when one of the packages is removed? 12:44
tibbs Don't you have to call alternatives in %postun in that case? 12:44
abadger1999 It seems like it shouldn't but I don't know if %ghosts are special. 12:44
tibbs Admittedly I know little about how users and packagers are actually supposed to call alternatives. 12:45
* abadger1999 is of the opinion that alternatives should be used rarely as well. 12:45
spot alternatives hurts my brain pretty thoroughly 12:46
tibbs Rarely, sure, but you can't really escape it entirely. 12:46
tibbs There's no good way for distcc to replace gcc otherwise. 12:46
tibbs Well, $PATH, I guess. 12:46
spot tibbs: did FESCo ratify the two issues from last meeting? 12:46
spot i seem to recall they did, but i wanted to be sure. 12:46
tibbs Yes, as far as I can remember. 12:46
tibbs I would have sent any comments back to FPC. 12:47
spot mmkay. 12:47
abadger1999 Unless we say that distcc shouldn't be replacing gcc... Not sure if that's something we want to get into, though. 12:47
tibbs Well, we might consider getting into it one day, I guess. 12:47
abadger1999 Okay, well, I've got nothing else for this week. 12:50
delero we can continue the alternatives discussino on the mailing list 12:51
spot thanks guys, meeting done. 12:52
spot i'm going to go stop drop and roll for a while 12:52
<-- delero has left this channel. 12:54
rdieter [12:44] <abadger1999> Re: alternatives. If multiple packages %ghost the symlinks will they be removed when one of the packages is removed? : answer: no, only when all owners are removed (just like any other multiply-owned file or directory) 12:57
abadger1999 rdieter: Thanks! 12:57
(later)
f13 dbhole_: you still around? 14:04
f13 dbhole_: tibbs: that solution you proposed I thought was deemed unacceptable because it didn't work at the rpm level, only at the yum level. 14:04
tibbs The one I talked about doesn't have much to do with yum. 14:05
tibbs Obviously you have to have a source of rpms; from that you can make a list of the packages that might be on your system you need to remove. 14:06
f13 <tibbs> Jeez, just query the "specific repo", remove any packages from the system that exist there, and then install the ones you want. 14:06
tibbs "query" could be ls|sed 14:06
f13 ok, that 'query the specific repo' smacks of yum to me. That's why I avoided anything of that nature in my proposals. 14:06
f13 I was under the assumption that a hard requirement had to be that you could do this at the rpm level disconnected from the network 14:06
tibbs Besides, "specific repo" wasn't my wording; that's why I quoted it. 14:06
f13 nod 14:06
f13 I'll note that there still have been no relevant replies to my Provides: proposal on the jpackage discuss list :( 14:13

Generated by irclog2html.py 2.6 by Marius Gedminas - find it at mg.pov.lt!