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 03-03-2010, 03:13 AM
R P Herrold
 
Default Worthless updates

On Wed, 3 Mar 2010, Ralf Corsepius wrote:

> Wait until you will want to address a "serious/critical" bugfix to a
> perl-module which carries a dependency on a perl-module you haven't kept
> in sync with CPAN => You'd have to resort to either "fastestly" upgrade
> a series of perl-modules or resort to other solutions (E.g. to
> deliberately remove versioned dependencies from rpm and try to get away
> without them.)

oh, please -- simply this is simply FUD there; perl module
packaging against CPAN is not black art, but merely tiresome
in running down sub-dependencies, and reading all the ways the
perl folks emit missing dependency and 'optional' ['suggests',
'enhances'] determinations and forks through the lens of the
RPMBUILD.

ftp://ftp.owlriver.com/pub/mirror/ORC/bugzilla/perl-rpmbuild

A trained eye and a minimal bit of work can yield a set of
grep based filters to 'see' such trivially; I run rpmbuild,
then a local helper wrapper: perl-rmbuild, and can knock out a
module in less than 5 minutes to current. I think the deepest
chain I have is perhaps 30 modules -- a tossup between an old
bugzilla, spamassassin, and zoneminder, and a surprisingly
deep leaf target: perl-Net-DNS-SEC

-- Russ herrold
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
 
Old 03-03-2010, 03:25 AM
Ralf Corsepius
 
Default Worthless updates

On 03/03/2010 05:04 AM, Chris Adams wrote:
> Once upon a time, Ralf Corsepius<rc040203@freenet.de> said:
>> Cpan is being used to keep a perl-installation "current".
>
> Trying to mix CPAN and RPM managed perl modules is a recipie for
> disaster already.
Right, but this doesn't invalidate trying to help keeping the impact small.

> That's not a good reason for a meaningless update.
As I already tried to tell you, this update is *not meaningless*.

Due to perl's working principles and due the work-flow perl-module
authors apply, it is the version number which matters.

>>> I update when there's a bugfix that
>>> affects my platform (a bugfix that only affects perl 5.11 users doesn't
>>> affect F11 users) or when there's a new feature I need.
>> Wait until you will want to address a "serious/critical" bugfix to a
>> perl-module which carries a dependency on a perl-module you haven't kept
>> in sync with CPAN
>
> That's a good reason to update the depended-upon modules. Can you show
> a case where a module version that was only updated for compatibility
> with a newer version of perl was required?

There have been many such cases - Most of these cases however simply did
not have a visible impact, because most perl-modules in Fedora have been
kept "current enough".

If they occur, they show up as updates requests "Please update perl-xxx"
in bugzilla.

Ralf


--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
 
Old 03-03-2010, 03:31 AM
Ralf Corsepius
 
Default Worthless updates

On 03/03/2010 05:13 AM, R P Herrold wrote:
> On Wed, 3 Mar 2010, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
>
>> Wait until you will want to address a "serious/critical" bugfix to a
>> perl-module which carries a dependency on a perl-module you haven't kept
>> in sync with CPAN => You'd have to resort to either "fastestly" upgrade
>> a series of perl-modules or resort to other solutions (E.g. to
>> deliberately remove versioned dependencies from rpm and try to get away
>> without them.)
>
> oh, please -- simply this is simply FUD there; perl module
> packaging against CPAN is not black art,
Right, ... and we (the Fedora perl maintainers) push updates to assist
you. That's why these updates are being pushed.

> A trained eye and a minimal bit of work can yield a set of
> grep based filters to 'see' such trivially; I run rpmbuild,
> then a local helper wrapper: perl-rmbuild, and can knock out a
> module in less than 5 minutes to current. I think the deepest
> chain I have is perhaps 30 modules

Well, the deepest chain I have is rt-3.x.x. It took several months of
getting it into Fedora and is the origin of me maintaining ca. 50+
modules in Fedora.


Ralf
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
 
Old 03-03-2010, 03:53 AM
Kevin Kofler
 
Default Worthless updates

Ralf Corsepius wrote:
> Cpan is being used to keep a perl-installation "current". Running it on
> Fedora (or other system which come with a vendor supplied perl),
> replaces all "non-current" perl-modules with those which are marked
> "current" in CPAN.

We don't support third-party packages, and even less third-party non-
packages like CPAN.

> Or differently: If we don't keep perl-modules in Fedora's perl "CPAN
> current", we sooner or later will not be able to add other perl-modules
> to Fedora or to upgrade other perl-modules, which e.g. carry
> hard-dependencies to these "not upgraded modules" to Fedora

If they require a minimum version which didn't actually change anything
instead of the actual minimum required version, they're broken and need to
be fixed.

Kevin Kofler

--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
 
Old 03-03-2010, 04:25 AM
Iain Arnell
 
Default Worthless updates

On Wed, Mar 3, 2010 at 5:53 AM, Kevin Kofler <kevin.kofler@chello.at> wrote:
> If they require a minimum version which didn't actually change anything
> instead of the actual minimum required version, they're broken and need to
> be fixed.

Maybe it doesn't change anything for you, but if I write an
application that uses Locale::Maketext::Lexicon, I don't want to be
bugged by users elsewhere running perl 5.11 moaning about deprecation
warnings - so I simply require the version that removes the warnings.

--
Iain.
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
 
Old 03-03-2010, 06:11 AM
Orcan Ogetbil
 
Default Worthless updates

On Tue, Mar 2, 2010 at 8:29 PM, Jesse Keating wrote:
> Ok... removing deprecated uses is a questionable at best update, but
> here is the kicker. *The perl in F11 is perl-5.10.0-82.fc11. *So these
> functions aren't actually deprecated in F11. *So... why is this update
> going out?

How do you know that all people over the globe who are using F-11, are
running perl-5.10.0-82.fc11? They could as well have installed another
version manually.

Orcan
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
 
Old 03-03-2010, 06:23 AM
Jesse Keating
 
Default Worthless updates

On Wed, 2010-03-03 at 02:11 -0500, Orcan Ogetbil wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 2, 2010 at 8:29 PM, Jesse Keating wrote:
> > Ok... removing deprecated uses is a questionable at best update, but
> > here is the kicker. The perl in F11 is perl-5.10.0-82.fc11. So these
> > functions aren't actually deprecated in F11. So... why is this update
> > going out?
>
> How do you know that all people over the globe who are using F-11, are
> running perl-5.10.0-82.fc11? They could as well have installed another
> version manually.
>

In which case they would need to deal with the fallout thereof. And
even then, it's a deprecated function, not a removed function.

--
Jesse Keating
Fedora -- Freedom˛ is a feature!
identi.ca: http://identi.ca/jkeating
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
 
Old 03-03-2010, 06:42 AM
Chris Weyl
 
Default Worthless updates

On Tue, Mar 2, 2010 at 9:25 PM, Iain Arnell <iarnell@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 3, 2010 at 5:53 AM, Kevin Kofler <kevin.kofler@chello.at> wrote:
>> If they require a minimum version which didn't actually change anything
>> instead of the actual minimum required version, they're broken and need to
>> be fixed.

Many CPAN authors are very aggressive with their dependencies.
Presumptively, required versions is upstream's call, right?
Constantly second-guessing upstream -- a generally highly tested, very
responsive upstream in this case -- is a quick way for me to lose what
little of my sanity I have left This isn't some random package
collection we're talking about; this is the CPAN, with a common bug
tracking, metadata-driven, testphilic infrastructure and culture. We
have nearly 1,500 perl packages from the CPAN in Fedora, last I
checked, and we wouldn't be able to do this without relying on the
CPAN's strengths.

> Maybe it doesn't change anything for you, but if I write an
> application that uses Locale::Maketext::Lexicon, I don't want to be
> bugged by users elsewhere running perl 5.11 moaning about deprecation
> warnings - so I simply require the version that removes the warnings.

One of the more difficult things about keeping some of the more
dependency-heavy packages up to date (perl-DBIx-Class, I'm looking at
you) is making sure that all of the prereqs are up to date. In this
context even what appears to be a "trivial" update in some smaller
package can have a disproportionate impact if not in place... Making
small, incremental updates is far preferable here.

Everyone, please, if I may submit: we're more than marginally
off-topic here, and it seems we've veered off into a discussion of how
the loosely-coupled Perl SIG updates packages. I'm not trying to shut
down the discussion -- I'm rather enjoying it -- but it's probably
more germane to perl-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org. We'd love to have
you there

-Chris
--
Chris Weyl
Ex astris, scientia
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
 
Old 03-03-2010, 07:03 AM
Jon Masters
 
Default Worthless updates

On Tue, 2010-03-02 at 21:07 -0500, Seth Vidal wrote:
>
> On Tue, 2 Mar 2010, Jesse Keating wrote:
> > Ok... removing deprecated uses is a questionable at best update, but
> > here is the kicker. The perl in F11 is perl-5.10.0-82.fc11. So these
> > functions aren't actually deprecated in F11. So... why is this update
> > going out? What possible benefit does the user get from this? Does
> > anybody see this as a reasonable update to publish on F11?

My own personal opinion is that stable updates should only fix serious
issues, or security problems. Fedora has such a short lifetime as it is,
I really can't see the value in pushing features to F11 when it will die
soon. I think it's far better to leave the churn in rawhide.

> the suggestion I had made at fudcon went something like this:
>
> 1. all packages being put in as updates would need to be marked as per
> the type of update. the default is 'trivial'. Options might include: new
> pkg, trivial, feature, bugfix, security
>
> 2. We would issue security updates whenever they happened. Issue bugfix
> updates once every 2 weeks. Everything else once a month.

Far better and more predictable. Even better would be to explicitly call
out the security updates in to a separate repo feed like $other distros.
The packages are the same (not a separate buildroot - I realize there
are non-trivial dependency issues) in my utopia, but they're easily
distinguished from non-security related features.

As it is, I agree with various blog postings by people here over the
last few days. I very rarely update my (non world facing) Fedora systems
these days unless I know I can reboot and have time to fix things. I
have rawhide systems for rawhide but I know if they break I can just fix
them later because they're not needed to get other stuff done and I can
always use another VM, or whatever. The point is, one expects rawhide to
"break", but one does not expect stable to break.

This isn't $Enterprise_Linux, it doesn't come with a guarantee and does
expect to be a moving target, but that doesn't mean there can't be a
predictable update cycle and a reasonable expectation that updates are
necessary and won't break systems.

Jon.


--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
 
Old 03-03-2010, 07:21 AM
Marcela Maslanova
 
Default Worthless updates

In perl we have to often update package to fix one thing, but
this update needs higher version of different package, so we
are forced to update package even in older releases.
Chris and Ralf explained our reasons well in previous posts.

There are more worthless updates, so you should send some general
proposal for all packages or even better stop thread about
worthless updates/stable-testing updates. Thank you.

----- "Jon Masters" <jonathan@jonmasters.org> wrote:

> On Tue, 2010-03-02 at 21:07 -0500, Seth Vidal wrote:
> >
> > On Tue, 2 Mar 2010, Jesse Keating wrote:
> > > Ok... removing deprecated uses is a questionable at best update,
> but
> > > here is the kicker. The perl in F11 is perl-5.10.0-82.fc11. So
> these
> > > functions aren't actually deprecated in F11. So... why is this
> update
> > > going out? What possible benefit does the user get from this?
> Does
> > > anybody see this as a reasonable update to publish on F11?
>
> My own personal opinion is that stable updates should only fix
> serious
> issues, or security problems. Fedora has such a short lifetime as it
> is,
> I really can't see the value in pushing features to F11 when it will
> die
> soon. I think it's far better to leave the churn in rawhide.
>
> > the suggestion I had made at fudcon went something like this:
> >
> > 1. all packages being put in as updates would need to be marked as
> per
> > the type of update. the default is 'trivial'. Options might include:
> new
> > pkg, trivial, feature, bugfix, security
> >
> > 2. We would issue security updates whenever they happened. Issue
> bugfix
> > updates once every 2 weeks. Everything else once a month.
>
> Far better and more predictable. Even better would be to explicitly
> call
> out the security updates in to a separate repo feed like $other
> distros.
> The packages are the same (not a separate buildroot - I realize there
> are non-trivial dependency issues) in my utopia, but they're easily
> distinguished from non-security related features.
>
> As it is, I agree with various blog postings by people here over the
> last few days. I very rarely update my (non world facing) Fedora
> systems
> these days unless I know I can reboot and have time to fix things. I
> have rawhide systems for rawhide but I know if they break I can just
> fix
> them later because they're not needed to get other stuff done and I
> can
> always use another VM, or whatever. The point is, one expects rawhide
> to
> "break", but one does not expect stable to break.
>
> This isn't $Enterprise_Linux, it doesn't come with a guarantee and
> does
> expect to be a moving target, but that doesn't mean there can't be a
> predictable update cycle and a reasonable expectation that updates
> are
> necessary and won't break systems.
>
> Jon.
>
>
> --
> 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
 

Thread Tools




All times are GMT. The time now is 10:02 PM.

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