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 > Fedora Development

 
 
LinkBack Thread Tools
 
Old 07-09-2008, 06:12 PM
Thorsten Leemhuis
 
Default new RPM version and Feature process (was: Heads-up: brand new RPM version about to hit rawhide)

On 09.07.2008 12:51, Panu Matilainen wrote:
At long last, we are about to get a brand new RPM version (alpha snapshot
at the moment) into rawhide. The list of changes from 4.4.2.x is massive
and a full summary needs a separate posting (will follow as time permits),
this is just a heads-up of immediate consequences for Fedora packagers and
rawhide consumers:


Sounds great, thanks Panu and others! Much appreciated and looked
forward to.


But this announcement made me wondering: We have a big and complicated
Feature process [1] in Fedora that keeps a whole lot of people and
committees (especially FESCo) busy. Afaics the new RPM version is
something that can be considered a "feature" [2]. It was afaics not
approved yet by FESCO [3] or even proposed [4]. I would expect going
backwards to an older RPM in rawhide later will be next to impossible or
very very hard. IOW: once it's in rawhide for a few days FESCO kind of
has no other chance then to approve this feature, in case it ever comes
up for a Feature vote in a FESCo meeting.


So is the most of the Feature process (and especially FESCo's approval)
useless overhead? It looks to me that the answer tends to be "yes" as
long as big features like this can easily creep in without going through
the established approval process, as long as the feature gets added to
rawhide early enough in the devel cycle.


Just wondering. No, I really don't want to stop the new RPM; there are
likely other examples (say OpenOffice 3.0) in rawhide (but going
backwards there as hard as with RPM). But I'm more and more wondering if
the complex Feature process is worth all the trouble and effort. The
best thing that came out of it in F9 IMHO were the good release notes
and great "whats new" pages. But I'd say we can have that easier.


CU
knurd

[1]
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Features/Policy

[2]
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Features/Policy#Definition_of_a_Feature

[3]
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Releases/10/FeatureList
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Category:AcceptedFedora10

[4]
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Category:ProposedFedora10
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/CategoryProposedFeature

--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
 
Old 07-09-2008, 08:34 PM
Panu Matilainen
 
Default new RPM version and Feature process (was: Heads-up: brand new RPM version about to hit rawhide)

On Wed, 9 Jul 2008, Thorsten Leemhuis wrote:


On 09.07.2008 12:51, Panu Matilainen wrote:
At long last, we are about to get a brand new RPM version (alpha snapshot
at the moment) into rawhide. The list of changes from 4.4.2.x is massive
and a full summary needs a separate posting (will follow as time permits),
this is just a heads-up of immediate consequences for Fedora packagers and
rawhide consumers:


Sounds great, thanks Panu and others! Much appreciated and looked forward to.

But this announcement made me wondering: We have a big and complicated
Feature process [1] in Fedora that keeps a whole lot of people and committees
(especially FESCo) busy. Afaics the new RPM version is something that can be
considered a "feature" [2]. It was afaics not approved yet by FESCO [3] or
even proposed [4].


Hohum... fair point. Frankly, I've been so buried up in upstream rpm
development for a good part of the last year the thought of the feature
process never really so much as crossed my mind. My bad.


The new RPM is not committed yet or built yet, partly due to other issues,
partly to give time for any last regrets. Since we're obviously
having some last regrets here...


The simple-minded bass-player in me has just one practical question: what
do we do about it? Sure we can go through the feature process, it'll just
probably mean the new rpm will miss F10 alpha. Whether that's a good thing
or not might depend on if you're in rel-eng or not


I would expect going backwards to an older RPM in rawhide
later will be next to impossible or very very hard. IOW: once it's in rawhide
for a few days FESCO kind of has no other chance then to approve this
feature, in case it ever comes up for a Feature vote in a FESCo meeting.


FWIW, having a safe back-out route is the very reason why it's going to be
built with bdb-4.5.20 instead of "whatever's latest" - that version
permits going back and forth between rpm 4.4.x and current one without any
complicated db conversion procedures.


So is the most of the Feature process (and especially FESCo's approval)
useless overhead? It looks to me that the answer tends to be "yes" as long as
big features like this can easily creep in without going through the
established approval process, as long as the feature gets added to rawhide
early enough in the devel cycle.


Just wondering. No, I really don't want to stop the new RPM; there are likely
other examples (say OpenOffice 3.0) in rawhide (but going backwards there as
hard as with RPM). But I'm more and more wondering if the complex Feature
process is worth all the trouble and effort. The best thing that came out of
it in F9 IMHO were the good release notes and great "whats new" pages. But
I'd say we can have that easier.


One reason for missing out on the feature process is probably that I've
found it somehow alien thing to begin with - I don't consider myself
working on a "Fedora feature", I'm "working on rpm.org upstream" to get a
much-needed update to the aging RPM version we have been living with for
ages. Mind you, this is not an excuse for missing out on distro policies.
The line between a "feature" and a "non-feature" is extremely obscure
really, and I think the point of "if you're unsure, ask" has not been made
sufficiently clear. Until perhaps now


- Panu -

--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
 
Old 07-10-2008, 07:21 AM
Panu Matilainen
 
Default new RPM version and Feature process (was: Heads-up: brand new RPM version about to hit rawhide)

On Thu, 10 Jul 2008, Patrice Dumas wrote:


On Wed, Jul 09, 2008 at 03:43:44PM -0400, Josh Boyer wrote:


5) Are you trying to promote this package as a Feature for publicity
reasons?


I think that only this one should be relevant. That is is the packager
willing to communicate the change.


Heh, some of us could use LESS publicity, this already made it into LWN
despite being just an early warning.


- Panu -

--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
 
Old 07-10-2008, 08:14 AM
Michael Schwendt
 
Default new RPM version and Feature process (was: Heads-up: brand new RPM version about to hit rawhide)

On Wed, 9 Jul 2008 20:41:31 -0500, Callum Lerwick wrote:

> Though I do foresee *cough* certain people *cough* complaining about
> how their spec they've used unchanged since RHL 6.2 no longer builds,
> and accuses us of "breaking things" and "actively sabotaging" RPM...
> So this should probably get prominent notice in the release notes, at
> least.

Oh, that will get funny anyway if packagers start using the new features,
such as %{patches}, and run into problems when mass-copying their
%{dist}-poisoned spec files to older branches.

--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
 
Old 07-10-2008, 12:56 PM
Panu Matilainen
 
Default new RPM version and Feature process (was: Heads-up: brand new RPM version about to hit rawhide)

On Wed, 9 Jul 2008, Jesse Keating wrote:


On Wed, 2008-07-09 at 23:34 +0300, Panu Matilainen wrote:


The simple-minded bass-player in me has just one practical question: what
do we do about it? Sure we can go through the feature process, it'll just
probably mean the new rpm will miss F10 alpha. Whether that's a good thing
or not might depend on if you're in rel-eng or not


If we can dedicate a couple helpers to you, I bet we could get a feature
page written up quickly, and I bet we could get FESCo approval in good
faith on getting a suitable feature page up, after the package is built.


Well then, here you go: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Features/RPM4.6
The new rpm isn't committed or built yet, I'm going to wait for approval
so nobody gets to complain we didn't go by the book.


In the meanwhile, you can find the SRPMS for the new rpm and couple of
more critical packages patched to build + work with it here:

http://laiskiainen.org/rpm/srpms/

The rpm package is huge because it has db-4.5.20 tarball in it. This isn't
the way it's going to be built for Fedora, it's just a temporary measure
to make testing easier.


- Panu -

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

Thread Tools




All times are GMT. The time now is 01:32 AM.

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