Greetings.

I'd like to propose splitting out
the /etc/yum.repos.d/fedora-rawhide.repo file into a
fedora-release-rawhide subpackage which is NOT installed by default or
shipped on the live media.

I wrote up this using the Feature template, but I don't guess it's
really that much of a feature:

https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Features/RawhideRepoSubpackage

(except in that it needs coordination across the distro and docs
updates, etc).

Thoughts?

(either here or the talk page of the above wiki link).

Thanks,

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

2010/1/7 Kevin Fenzi <kevin@scrye.com>:
> Greetings.
>
> I'd like to propose splitting out
> the /etc/yum.repos.d/fedora-rawhide.repo file into a
> fedora-release-rawhide subpackage which is NOT installed by default or
> shipped on the live media.
>
> I wrote up this using the Feature template, but I don't guess it's
> really that much of a feature:
>
> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Features/RawhideRepoSubpackage
>
> (except in that it needs coordination across the distro and docs
> updates, etc).
>
> Thoughts?
>
> (either here or the talk page of the above wiki link).
>
> Thanks,
>
> kevin
>

You must do a lot more Fedora user support than I do; is it really a
frequent occurrence that users unwittingly enable Rawhide and screw up
their systems?

Not a criticism, I'm just surprised it happens at all.

Maybe the problem could be solved just by labelling it clearer,
rawhide-development or something.

Regards,
Mat

--
Mat Booth

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

On Wed, Jan 06, 2010 at 08:47:09PM -0700, Kevin Fenzi wrote:

> I'd like to propose splitting out
> the /etc/yum.repos.d/fedora-rawhide.repo file into a
> fedora-release-rawhide subpackage which is NOT installed by default or
> shipped on the live media.
>
> I wrote up this using the Feature template, but I don't guess it's
> really that much of a feature:
>
> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Features/RawhideRepoSubpackage
>
> (except in that it needs coordination across the distro and docs
> updates, etc).
>
> Thoughts?

You propose that the repo should be enabled by default if the package is
installed. I don't like this. This make it a lot easier to break a
system with Rawhide, if one installs the repo file, e.g. only to be able
to easily download the src.rpm files with yumdownloader or to query it
with repoquery, but not to actually install the unsigned packages from
it. It will probably also auto break systems that just install everything,
which is also not nice.

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

On Thu, 7 Jan 2010 12:28:59 +0000
Mat Booth <fedora@matbooth.co.uk> wrote:

> You must do a lot more Fedora user support than I do; is it really a
> frequent occurrence that users unwittingly enable Rawhide and screw up
> their systems?
>
> Not a criticism, I'm just surprised it happens at all.

Yeah, I would say we get about 1 person a week or so in #fedora that
decided they wanted as many choices as possible, so they enabled every
repo file they had installed. I guess it's sometimes more, sometimes
less.

> Maybe the problem could be solved just by labelling it clearer,
> rawhide-development or something.

Currently it says:

# These packages are untested and still under development. This
# repository is used for development of new releases.
#
# This repository can see significant daily turnover and major
# functionality changes which cause unexpected problems with other
# development packages. Please use these packages if you want to work
# with the Fedora developers by testing these new development packages.
#
# fedora-test-list@redhat.com is available as a discussion forum for
# testing and troubleshooting for development packages in conjunction
# with new test releases.
#
# More information is available at http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Testing
#
# Reproducible and reportable issues should be filed at
# http://bugzilla.redhat.com/.

However, the people who enable all repos (including source and
debuginfo) aren't the ones who would stop doing that after reading most
anything I don't think. They want everything enabled so they can have
the most choice/newest stuff, and then are very sad when they find out
they have to re-install to go back to the stable release.

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

On Thu, 07 Jan 2010 15:24:05 +0100
Till Maas <opensource@till.name> wrote:

> You propose that the repo should be enabled by default if the package
> is installed. I don't like this. This make it a lot easier to break a
> system with Rawhide, if one installs the repo file, e.g. only to be
> able to easily download the src.rpm files with yumdownloader or to
> query it with repoquery, but not to actually install the unsigned
> packages from it.

How many folks do this? I suppose this is a downside... we could also
ship it with default disabled, so you would need to install and then
enable it.

> It will probably also auto break systems that just
> install everything, which is also not nice.

I don't think it's possible to 'install everything'.
There are a number of packages in the collection that conflict.
Or do you have some other meaning for 'everything'?

kevin

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

On Wed, 2010-01-06 at 20:47 -0700, Kevin Fenzi wrote:

> I wrote up this using the Feature template, but I don't guess it's
> really that much of a feature:
>
> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Features/RawhideRepoSubpackage
>
> (except in that it needs coordination across the distro and docs
> updates, etc).
>
> Thoughts?
>

Sounds like a great idea to me. Preventing accidents is good.

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

On Thu, 07 Jan 2010 14:02:24 -0700, Kevin Fenzi wrote:

> On Thu, 07 Jan 2010 15:24:05 +0100
> Till Maas <opensource@till.name> wrote:
>
>> You propose that the repo should be enabled by default if the package
>> is installed. I don't like this. This make it a lot easier to break a
>> system with Rawhide, if one installs the repo file, e.g. only to be
>> able to easily download the src.rpm files with yumdownloader or to
>> query it with repoquery, but not to actually install the unsigned
>> packages from it.
>
> How many folks do this? I suppose this is a downside... we could also
> ship it with default disabled, so you would need to install and then
> enable it.

What makes you think these same users won't then also edit and enable
rawhide at this point? It's not much of a stretch to think these
seemingly innocent users might see this "rawhide" package, install, and
then also enable it; in fact, ISTM, a package that they don't have that
promises some type of newest whizbang gadgets that they're missing out on
might entice more of this class of user.

Might I suggest:

$ chattr +i /etc/yum.repos.d/fedora-rawhide.repo

just kidding, well, half-kidding

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

2010/1/7 Zing <zing@fastmail.fm>:
> On Thu, 07 Jan 2010 14:02:24 -0700, Kevin Fenzi wrote:
>
>> On Thu, 07 Jan 2010 15:24:05 +0100
>> Till Maas <opensource@till.name> wrote:
>>
>>> You propose that the repo should be enabled by default if the package
>>> is installed. I don't like this. This make it a lot easier to break a
>>> system with Rawhide, if one installs the repo file, e.g. only to be
>>> able to easily download the src.rpm files with yumdownloader or to
>>> query it with repoquery, but not to actually install the unsigned
>>> packages from it.
>>
>> How many folks do this? I suppose this is a downside... we could also
>> ship it with default disabled, so you would need to install and then
>> enable it.
>
> What makes you think these same users won't then also edit and enable
> rawhide at this point?

Because the type of users we speak of, just enable *blindly* whatever
repo is available by a *default* installation. Those type of users
*dont* read at all, neither descriptions coming with a package nor
websites. So the barrier is much higher for them to break their boxen.

It would be even better to install (disabled) the rpmfusion repos.
Because enough of them think they might get what they miss if they
enable rawhide. The closed source drivers for their video cards and
nonfree codecs to play their music and movies.

So at least a big +1 to have the rawhide repo in a different package
and get it installed disabled if one wants/needs it.

--
LG Thomas

Dubium sapientiae initium

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

On Thu, Jan 07, 2010 at 02:02:24PM -0700, Kevin Fenzi wrote:
> On Thu, 07 Jan 2010 15:24:05 +0100
> Till Maas <opensource@till.name> wrote:
>
> > You propose that the repo should be enabled by default if the package
> > is installed. I don't like this. This make it a lot easier to break a
> > system with Rawhide, if one installs the repo file, e.g. only to be
> > able to easily download the src.rpm files with yumdownloader or to
> > query it with repoquery, but not to actually install the unsigned
> > packages from it.
>
> How many folks do this? I suppose this is a downside... we could also
> ship it with default disabled, so you would need to install and then
> enable it.

I guess the use of repoquery for rawhide is quite common for Fedora
developers who want to inspect the impact of updating their packages.
Also I guess at least the selective installation of some Rawhide package
might be quite common to verify bugfixes.
Imho the danger of accidently breaking the system is a lot higher if
there is a package that will auto-destruct the system with the next yum
update than it is with the current setup, where a manual change of a
config file is required.

> > It will probably also auto break systems that just
> > install everything, which is also not nice.
>
> I don't think it's possible to 'install everything'.
> There are a number of packages in the collection that conflict.
> Or do you have some other meaning for 'everything'?

I believe that I have read about people installing everything except for
conflicting packages to find some packaging bugs, e.g. non explicit
conflicts.

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

On Fri, 2010-01-08 at 14:43 +0100, Till Maas wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 07, 2010 at 02:02:24PM -0700, Kevin Fenzi wrote:
> > On Thu, 07 Jan 2010 15:24:05 +0100
> > Till Maas <opensource@till.name> wrote:
> >
> > > You propose that the repo should be enabled by default if the package
> > > is installed. I don't like this. This make it a lot easier to break a
> > > system with Rawhide, if one installs the repo file, e.g. only to be
> > > able to easily download the src.rpm files with yumdownloader or to
> > > query it with repoquery, but not to actually install the unsigned
> > > packages from it.
> >
> > How many folks do this? I suppose this is a downside... we could also
> > ship it with default disabled, so you would need to install and then
> > enable it.
>
> I guess the use of repoquery for rawhide is quite common for Fedora
> developers who want to inspect the impact of updating their packages.
> Also I guess at least the selective installation of some Rawhide package
> might be quite common to verify bugfixes.

IMHO developers and debuggers can install the additional package..

> Imho the danger of accidently breaking the system is a lot higher if
> there is a package that will auto-destruct the system with the next yum
> update than it is with the current setup, where a manual change of a
> config file is required.

You don't have to edit the config file, it's enough to run yum with
--enablerepo=rawhide (or --enablerepo=* !).

+1 for branching, with default disabled.
--
Jussi Lehtola
Fedora Project Contributor
jussilehtola@fedoraproject.org

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