FAQ Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read
» Video Reviews

» Linux Archive

Linux-archive is a website aiming to archive linux email lists and to make them easily accessible for linux users/developers.


» Sponsor

» Partners

» Sponsor

Go Back   Linux Archive > Redhat > EPEL Development

 
 
LinkBack Thread Tools
 
Old 11-30-2010, 09:33 PM
Stephen John Smoogen
 
Default RFC: EOL of mediawiki from EL-4, EL-5, EL-6

On Tue, Nov 30, 2010 at 14:27, Ray Van Dolson <rayvd@bludgeon.org> wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 30, 2010 at 01:53:32PM -0700, Stephen John Smoogen wrote:
>> I plan to EOL mediawiki for the EPEL releases for EL-4,5,6 due to
>> packaging newer ones using mediawiki114,mediawiki115, mediawiki116.
>>
>> There are several ways I can do this:
>>
>> 1) change mediawiki114 to replace mediawiki. Pros would allow people
>> to keep a package on their system. COns most likely will break due to
>> linking and changes in package.
>>
>> 2) put out a final mediawiki package with a "Please dont use." in
>> README and %description.
>>
>> 3) just remove from system.
>>
>> I need input and help on getting this done.
>>
>> Thankyou.
>
> I like option #1. *Are you tracking this in a bugzilla somewhere? *I
> would be happy to "help" insofar as testing this new package (the
> upgrade side-effects mainly).

I have tried a couple of times to do #1. However they all ended up
being very very delicate in that they only worked with a default
install. As soon as I tried to make it work in a non-default way I
ended up with broken links and a lot of hand fixing that would be
needed either way.

At this point my best step is to parallel install mediwiki114 and
mediawiki. Go through your config files and symbolic links and point
to mediawiki114. Test. Repeat.

The second issue is that they are not 1:1 matches. I decided not to
implement Axil's multihome patch because upstream had no interest in
it and they pointed out it needed a more work for it to work well (for
their definition of well). I am a) not a PHP developer and b) full up
on other jobs so decided to take it out and implement a minimal patch
set to deal with upstreams packaging style.

> .. however, I think this provides the best opportunity for a "better"
> upgrade path. *We could document upgrade hurdles we find either on the
> wiki or in a README.Fedora file (or both).
>
> Ray
>
> _______________________________________________
> epel-devel-list mailing list
> epel-devel-list@redhat.com
> https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/epel-devel-list
>



--
Stephen J Smoogen.
"The core skill of innovators is error recovery, not failure avoidance."
Randy Nelson, President of Pixar University.
"Let us be kind, one to another, for most of us are fighting a hard
battle." -- Ian MacLaren

_______________________________________________
epel-devel-list mailing list
epel-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/epel-devel-list
 
Old 11-30-2010, 09:49 PM
Ray Van Dolson
 
Default RFC: EOL of mediawiki from EL-4, EL-5, EL-6

On Tue, Nov 30, 2010 at 03:33:43PM -0700, Stephen John Smoogen wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 30, 2010 at 14:27, Ray Van Dolson <rayvd@bludgeon.org> wrote:
> > On Tue, Nov 30, 2010 at 01:53:32PM -0700, Stephen John Smoogen wrote:
> >> I plan to EOL mediawiki for the EPEL releases for EL-4,5,6 due to
> >> packaging newer ones using mediawiki114,mediawiki115, mediawiki116.
> >>
> >> There are several ways I can do this:
> >>
> >> 1) change mediawiki114 to replace mediawiki. Pros would allow people
> >> to keep a package on their system. COns most likely will break due to
> >> linking and changes in package.
> >>
> >> 2) put out a final mediawiki package with a "Please dont use." in
> >> README and %description.
> >>
> >> 3) just remove from system.
> >>
> >> I need input and help on getting this done.
> >>
> >> Thankyou.
> >
> > I like option #1. *Are you tracking this in a bugzilla somewhere? *I
> > would be happy to "help" insofar as testing this new package (the
> > upgrade side-effects mainly).
>
> I have tried a couple of times to do #1. However they all ended up
> being very very delicate in that they only worked with a default
> install. As soon as I tried to make it work in a non-default way I
> ended up with broken links and a lot of hand fixing that would be
> needed either way.
>
> At this point my best step is to parallel install mediwiki114 and
> mediawiki. Go through your config files and symbolic links and point
> to mediawiki114. Test. Repeat.

Ah. In light of your experiences then, it sounds like the parallel
install is the way to go -- and then maybe down the road retire the
parent mediawiki package after people have had a chance to adopt
mediawiki114 and update their configurations.

>
> The second issue is that they are not 1:1 matches. I decided not to
> implement Axil's multihome patch because upstream had no interest in
> it and they pointed out it needed a more work for it to work well (for
> their definition of well). I am a) not a PHP developer and b) full up
> on other jobs so decided to take it out and implement a minimal patch
> set to deal with upstreams packaging style.

All makes sense to me.

Do you have a bz# where you're tracking this so I could join to
collaborate on testing? Alternately, I'll just keep an eye out for
mediawiki114 packages to show up in epel-testing.

> > .. however, I think this provides the best opportunity for a "better"
> > upgrade path. *We could document upgrade hurdles we find either on the
> > wiki or in a README.Fedora file (or both).
> >
> > Ray

Ray

_______________________________________________
epel-devel-list mailing list
epel-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/epel-devel-list
 
Old 11-30-2010, 11:05 PM
Stephen John Smoogen
 
Default RFC: EOL of mediawiki from EL-4, EL-5, EL-6

On Tue, Nov 30, 2010 at 15:49, Ray Van Dolson <rayvd@bludgeon.org> wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 30, 2010 at 03:33:43PM -0700, Stephen John Smoogen wrote:
>> On Tue, Nov 30, 2010 at 14:27, Ray Van Dolson <rayvd@bludgeon.org> wrote:
>> > On Tue, Nov 30, 2010 at 01:53:32PM -0700, Stephen John Smoogen wrote:
>> >> I plan to EOL mediawiki for the EPEL releases for EL-4,5,6 due to
>> >> packaging newer ones using mediawiki114,mediawiki115, mediawiki116.
>> >>
>> >> There are several ways I can do this:
>> >>
>> >> 1) change mediawiki114 to replace mediawiki. Pros would allow people
>> >> to keep a package on their system. COns most likely will break due to
>> >> linking and changes in package.
>> >>
>> >> 2) put out a final mediawiki package with a "Please dont use." in
>> >> README and %description.
>> >>
>> >> 3) just remove from system.
>> >>
>> >> I need input and help on getting this done.
>> >>
>> >> Thankyou.
>> >
>> > I like option #1. *Are you tracking this in a bugzilla somewhere? *I
>> > would be happy to "help" insofar as testing this new package (the
>> > upgrade side-effects mainly).
>>
>> I have tried a couple of times to do #1. However they all ended up
>> being very very delicate in that they only worked with a default
>> install. As soon as I tried to make it work in a non-default way I
>> ended up with broken links and a lot of hand fixing that would be
>> needed either way.
>>
>> At this point my best step is to parallel install mediwiki114 and
>> mediawiki. Go through your config files and symbolic links and point
>> to mediawiki114. Test. Repeat.
>
> Ah. *In light of your experiences then, it sounds like the parallel
> install is the way to go -- and then maybe down the road retire the
> parent mediawiki package after people have had a chance to adopt
> mediawiki114 and update their configurations.
>
>>
>> The second issue is that they are not 1:1 matches. I decided not to
>> implement Axil's multihome patch because upstream had no interest in
>> it and they pointed out it needed a more work for it to work well (for
>> their definition of well). I am a) not a PHP developer and b) full up
>> on other jobs so decided to take it out and implement a minimal patch
>> set to deal with upstreams packaging style.
>
> All makes sense to me.
>
> Do you have a bz# where you're tracking this so I could join to
> collaborate on testing? *Alternately, I'll just keep an eye out for
> mediawiki114 packages to show up in epel-testing.
>

The package was accepted and the mediawiki114 packages went into
testing a while ago. I don't have any other bugzilla's involved

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=633081
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=633082
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=633085

--
Stephen J Smoogen.
"The core skill of innovators is error recovery, not failure avoidance."
Randy Nelson, President of Pixar University.
"Let us be kind, one to another, for most of us are fighting a hard
battle." -- Ian MacLaren

_______________________________________________
epel-devel-list mailing list
epel-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/epel-devel-list
 
Old 12-02-2010, 05:01 PM
Kevin Fenzi
 
Default RFC: EOL of mediawiki from EL-4, EL-5, EL-6

On Tue, 30 Nov 2010 14:49:42 -0800
Ray Van Dolson <rayvd@bludgeon.org> wrote:

> On Tue, Nov 30, 2010 at 03:33:43PM -0700, Stephen John Smoogen wrote:
> > On Tue, Nov 30, 2010 at 14:27, Ray Van Dolson <rayvd@bludgeon.org>
> > wrote:
> > > On Tue, Nov 30, 2010 at 01:53:32PM -0700, Stephen John Smoogen
> > > wrote:
> > >> I plan to EOL mediawiki for the EPEL releases for EL-4,5,6 due to
> > >> packaging newer ones using mediawiki114,mediawiki115,
> > >> mediawiki116.
> > >>
> > >> There are several ways I can do this:
> > >>
> > >> 1) change mediawiki114 to replace mediawiki. Pros would allow
> > >> people to keep a package on their system. COns most likely will
> > >> break due to linking and changes in package.
> > >>
> > >> 2) put out a final mediawiki package with a "Please dont use." in
> > >> README and %description.
> > >>
> > >> 3) just remove from system.
> > >>
> > >> I need input and help on getting this done.
> > >>
> > >> Thankyou.
> > >
> > > I like option #1. *Are you tracking this in a bugzilla somewhere?
> > > *I would be happy to "help" insofar as testing this new package
> > > (the upgrade side-effects mainly).
> >
> > I have tried a couple of times to do #1. However they all ended up
> > being very very delicate in that they only worked with a default
> > install. As soon as I tried to make it work in a non-default way I
> > ended up with broken links and a lot of hand fixing that would be
> > needed either way.
> >
> > At this point my best step is to parallel install mediwiki114 and
> > mediawiki. Go through your config files and symbolic links and point
> > to mediawiki114. Test. Repeat.
>
> Ah. In light of your experiences then, it sounds like the parallel
> install is the way to go -- and then maybe down the road retire the
> parent mediawiki package after people have had a chance to adopt
> mediawiki114 and update their configurations.
>
> >
> > The second issue is that they are not 1:1 matches. I decided not to
> > implement Axil's multihome patch because upstream had no interest in
> > it and they pointed out it needed a more work for it to work well
> > (for their definition of well). I am a) not a PHP developer and b)
> > full up on other jobs so decided to take it out and implement a
> > minimal patch set to deal with upstreams packaging style.
>
> All makes sense to me.
>
> Do you have a bz# where you're tracking this so I could join to
> collaborate on testing? Alternately, I'll just keep an eye out for
> mediawiki114 packages to show up in epel-testing.

Yeah, same here... so leave the existing mediawiki for now, push the
new ones. Wait a while, and perhaps down the road we can nuke/replace
the old one.

kevin
_______________________________________________
epel-devel-list mailing list
epel-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/epel-devel-list
 
Old 12-02-2010, 08:00 PM
Orion Poplawski
 
Default RFC: EOL of mediawiki from EL-4, EL-5, EL-6

On 11/30/2010 05:05 PM, Stephen John Smoogen wrote:


The package was accepted and the mediawiki114 packages went into
testing a while ago.


Really? for EL-5?

[root@hawk ~]# yum list --enablerepo=epel-testing mediawiki11*
Loaded plugins: downloadonly
Finished
Error: No matching Packages to list

https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/search/mediawiki114


I guess I'd like to move to 1.16 when available. Anything special to the EPEL
packages to note in addition to any MediaWiki notes on upgrading?


--
Orion Poplawski
Technical Manager 303-415-9701 x222
NWRA/CoRA Division FAX: 303-415-9702
3380 Mitchell Lane orion@cora.nwra.com
Boulder, CO 80301 http://www.cora.nwra.com

_______________________________________________
epel-devel-list mailing list
epel-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/epel-devel-list
 
Old 12-02-2010, 08:22 PM
Stephen John Smoogen
 
Default RFC: EOL of mediawiki from EL-4, EL-5, EL-6

On Thu, Dec 2, 2010 at 14:00, Orion Poplawski <orion@cora.nwra.com> wrote:
> On 11/30/2010 05:05 PM, Stephen John Smoogen wrote:
>>
>> The package was accepted and the mediawiki114 packages went into
>> testing a while ago.
>
> Really? for EL-5?

I must have screwed something up. I thought I built them for 4->6



--
Stephen J Smoogen.
"The core skill of innovators is error recovery, not failure avoidance."
Randy Nelson, President of Pixar University.
"Let us be kind, one to another, for most of us are fighting a hard
battle." -- Ian MacLaren

_______________________________________________
epel-devel-list mailing list
epel-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/epel-devel-list
 
Old 12-06-2010, 07:38 PM
Jeff Sheltren
 
Default RFC: EOL of mediawiki from EL-4, EL-5, EL-6

On Tue, Nov 30, 2010 at 12:53 PM, Stephen John Smoogen <smooge@gmail.com> wrote:
> I plan to EOL mediawiki for the EPEL releases for EL-4,5,6 due to
> packaging newer ones using mediawiki114,mediawiki115, mediawiki116.
>

As far as I can see, 1.14 is not supported upstream. How do you
propose handling security issues with that version? How will you
handle the transition from 1.15 when that loses upstream support?

-Jeff

_______________________________________________
epel-devel-list mailing list
epel-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/epel-devel-list
 
Old 12-06-2010, 07:57 PM
Stephen John Smoogen
 
Default RFC: EOL of mediawiki from EL-4, EL-5, EL-6

On Mon, Dec 6, 2010 at 13:38, Jeff Sheltren <jeff@osuosl.org> wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 30, 2010 at 12:53 PM, Stephen John Smoogen <smooge@gmail.com> wrote:
>> I plan to EOL mediawiki for the EPEL releases for EL-4,5,6 due to
>> packaging newer ones using mediawiki114,mediawiki115, mediawiki116.
>>
>
> As far as I can see, 1.14 is not supported upstream. *How do you
> propose handling security issues with that version? *How will you
> handle the transition from 1.15 when that loses upstream support?

I do not plan to handle security issues. The reason for 1.14 is that

a) I don't leave people hanging with the old version that was in EPEL.
b) if mediawiki were removed from the repo people who HAD to have
mediawiki114 had something.

> -Jeff
>
> _______________________________________________
> epel-devel-list mailing list
> epel-devel-list@redhat.com
> https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/epel-devel-list
>



--
Stephen J Smoogen.
"The core skill of innovators is error recovery, not failure avoidance."
Randy Nelson, President of Pixar University.
"Let us be kind, one to another, for most of us are fighting a hard
battle." -- Ian MacLaren

_______________________________________________
epel-devel-list mailing list
epel-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/epel-devel-list
 
Old 12-06-2010, 08:55 PM
Jeff Sheltren
 
Default RFC: EOL of mediawiki from EL-4, EL-5, EL-6

On Mon, Dec 6, 2010 at 12:57 PM, Stephen John Smoogen <smooge@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 6, 2010 at 13:38, Jeff Sheltren <jeff@osuosl.org> wrote:
>> On Tue, Nov 30, 2010 at 12:53 PM, Stephen John Smoogen <smooge@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> I plan to EOL mediawiki for the EPEL releases for EL-4,5,6 due to
>>> packaging newer ones using mediawiki114,mediawiki115, mediawiki116.
>>>
>>
>> As far as I can see, 1.14 is not supported upstream. *How do you
>> propose handling security issues with that version? *How will you
>> handle the transition from 1.15 when that loses upstream support?
>
> I do not plan to handle security issues.

Are other people worried about EPEL shipping/maintaining packages with
known security issues? Even with a big "DON'T USE THIS PACKAGE" in
the package description and/or README file, I'm sure that there will
be those that install it. This doesn't seem like a very responsible
thing for us to do in general.

-Jeff

_______________________________________________
epel-devel-list mailing list
epel-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/epel-devel-list
 
Old 12-06-2010, 09:07 PM
Ray Van Dolson
 
Default RFC: EOL of mediawiki from EL-4, EL-5, EL-6

On Mon, Dec 06, 2010 at 01:55:26PM -0800, Jeff Sheltren wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 6, 2010 at 12:57 PM, Stephen John Smoogen <smooge@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Mon, Dec 6, 2010 at 13:38, Jeff Sheltren <jeff@osuosl.org> wrote:
> >> On Tue, Nov 30, 2010 at 12:53 PM, Stephen John Smoogen <smooge@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>> I plan to EOL mediawiki for the EPEL releases for EL-4,5,6 due to
> >>> packaging newer ones using mediawiki114,mediawiki115, mediawiki116.
> >>>
> >>
> >> As far as I can see, 1.14 is not supported upstream. *How do you
> >> propose handling security issues with that version? *How will you
> >> handle the transition from 1.15 when that loses upstream support?
> >
> > I do not plan to handle security issues.
>
> Are other people worried about EPEL shipping/maintaining packages with
> known security issues? Even with a big "DON'T USE THIS PACKAGE" in
> the package description and/or README file, I'm sure that there will
> be those that install it. This doesn't seem like a very responsible
> thing for us to do in general.
>
> -Jeff

I would call it more realistic than irresponsible. We can't make
someone remove a package from their system, and we by and large don't
have the resources to backport security fixes into something as
complicated as Wikipedia.

I guess the argument is Obsoleting wikipedia and wikipedia114? So
would automatically breaking a user's installation be preferrable to
leaving them open to attack? Does EPEL advertise that it provides
completely secure packages or 'best-effort' only and it's up to
individual administrators to keep their eyes on such things?

I think the latter is the only realistic approach "in general". And
even in this specific case, I'd rather not see my (internal) Mediawiki
1.14 install broken automatically by an upgrade to 1.15.

Too bad there's not some slick way to automatically notify users via
email. Opt-in of course, and accessible via pkgname-epel-users@fp.o
or something.

Jeff does bring up a good point though -- I imagine there are other
packages that would fall under this umbrella (gallery2?).

Just my $0.02.

Ray

_______________________________________________
epel-devel-list mailing list
epel-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/epel-devel-list
 

Thread Tools




All times are GMT. The time now is 04:26 PM.

VBulletin, Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO ©2007, Crawlability, Inc.
Copyright 2007 - 2008, www.linux-archive.org