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 03-11-2010, 06:56 PM
Konstantin Ryabitsev
 
Default Stable Release Updates types proposal (was Fedora Board Meeting Recap 2010-03-11)

On Thu, Mar 11, 2010 at 1:36 PM, Jesse Keating <jkeating@redhat.com> wrote:
> On Thu, 2010-03-11 at 12:21 -0600, Matt Domsch wrote:
>> Paul: Jesse Keating provided a draft policy for what updates should be
>> done. *Board will take this into consideration, if necessary, in
>> another round of discussions (not this meeting).
>
> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Stable_Release_Updates_Proposal
>
> Here is the link. *I'm going to start a new thread here.
>
> Feedback welcome.

Should there be a caveat for cases like I'm dealing with right now --
pidgin-sipe 1.9.0 provides both security fixes and new features
compared to pidgin-sipe 1.8.1.

If these guidelines are to be followed, then I both should (security
fixes) and shouldn't (new features) be pushing this release into F12
and F11.

(And if the answer is "backport the security fixes to 1.8.1" then I'm
afraid I don't really have the skills nor have the time to spend on
such massive effort).


Regards,
--
McGill University IT Security
Konstantin Ryabitsev
Montréal, Québec
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
 
Old 03-11-2010, 07:40 PM
Jesse Keating
 
Default Stable Release Updates types proposal (was Fedora Board Meeting Recap 2010-03-11)

On Thu, 2010-03-11 at 14:56 -0500, Konstantin Ryabitsev wrote:
> Should there be a caveat for cases like I'm dealing with right now --
> pidgin-sipe 1.9.0 provides both security fixes and new features
> compared to pidgin-sipe 1.8.1.
>
> If these guidelines are to be followed, then I both should (security
> fixes) and shouldn't (new features) be pushing this release into F12
> and F11.
>
> (And if the answer is "backport the security fixes to 1.8.1" then I'm
> afraid I don't really have the skills nor have the time to spend on
> such massive effort).

If you're going by my page, you'll note that

Generally it is expected that these types of bugs can be fixed without
introducing new major upstream releases. When this is not the case the
update should be considered a new upstream version and treated
accordingly.

And then if you read the new upstream versions you'll see:

For new upstream versions of packages which provide new features, but
don't just fix critical bugs, an update can still be issued, but it is
vital that the new upstream version does not regress or drastically
change a user's experience.

--
Jesse Keating
Fedora -- Freedom² is a feature!
identi.ca: http://identi.ca/jkeating
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
 
Old 03-11-2010, 07:59 PM
Simo Sorce
 
Default Stable Release Updates types proposal (was Fedora Board Meeting Recap 2010-03-11)

On Thu, 11 Mar 2010 14:56:05 -0500
Konstantin Ryabitsev <icon@fedoraproject.org> wrote:

> (And if the answer is "backport the security fixes to 1.8.1" then I'm
> afraid I don't really have the skills nor have the time to spend on
> such massive effort).

You can always find a co-maintainer skilled enough to help you in such
rare cases... just saying.

Simo.

--
Simo Sorce * Red Hat, Inc * New York
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
 
Old 03-11-2010, 09:59 PM
Martin Langhoff
 
Default Stable Release Updates types proposal (was Fedora Board Meeting Recap 2010-03-11)

On Thu, Mar 11, 2010 at 1:36 PM, Jesse Keating <jkeating@redhat.com> wrote:
> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Stable_Release_Updates_Proposal
>
> Here is the link. *I'm going to start a new thread here.

Thanks for drafting this. Would it make sense to look at the API &
coupling dimension?

When a package provides an API/ABI that other software (packaged or
not!) depends on, the likelyhood of breakage and impact are much
higher.

IME, when the update affects a large set of interdependent, tightly
coupled packages (and external sw) (ie: KDE) the chances of a smooth
upgrade are vanishingly small, unless you spend QA efforts similar to
an OS release.

At the opposite end of the spectrum "Leaf" packages -- (ie: gnote),
are less likely to break, and less disruptive when it happens.

cheers,


m
--
martin.langhoff@gmail.com
martin@laptop.org -- School Server Architect
- ask interesting questions
- don't get distracted with shiny stuff - working code first
- http://wiki.laptop.org/go/User:Martinlanghoff
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
 
Old 03-11-2010, 10:06 PM
Jesse Keating
 
Default Stable Release Updates types proposal (was Fedora Board Meeting Recap 2010-03-11)

On Thu, 2010-03-11 at 17:59 -0500, Martin Langhoff wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 11, 2010 at 1:36 PM, Jesse Keating <jkeating@redhat.com> wrote:
> > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Stable_Release_Updates_Proposal
> >
> > Here is the link. I'm going to start a new thread here.
>
> Thanks for drafting this. Would it make sense to look at the API &
> coupling dimension?
>
> When a package provides an API/ABI that other software (packaged or
> not!) depends on, the likelyhood of breakage and impact are much
> higher.
>
> IME, when the update affects a large set of interdependent, tightly
> coupled packages (and external sw) (ie: KDE) the chances of a smooth
> upgrade are vanishingly small, unless you spend QA efforts similar to
> an OS release.
>
> At the opposite end of the spectrum "Leaf" packages -- (ie: gnote),
> are less likely to break, and less disruptive when it happens.
>

I had thought about these things, but they didn't strike me as a high
level update type. And for the leaf node packages, when they do break
it's not as less disruptive as you might think. Leaf node packages
exist for a reason, they are likely very important to somebody, and if
that breaks, that's going to be a very big issue for that somebody.

--
Jesse Keating
Fedora -- Freedom² is a feature!
identi.ca: http://identi.ca/jkeating
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
 
Old 03-12-2010, 12:01 AM
Mathieu Bridon
 
Default Stable Release Updates types proposal (was Fedora Board Meeting Recap 2010-03-11)

On Fri, Mar 12, 2010 at 01:44, Kevin Kofler <kevin.kofler@chello.at> wrote:
> Rahul Sundaram wrote:
>
>> On 03/12/2010 05:44 AM, Kevin Kofler wrote:
>>> Chris Adams wrote:
>>>
>>>> What about somebody developing on their own computer? Â*Having to rebuild
>>>> because you (or possibly somebody else, if a system has a dedicated
>>>> admin) loaded an update is highly irritating.
>>>>
>>> Huh? I have to compile the stuff I am developing very often anyway.
>>> Having to rebuild it once is not going to be the end of the world.
>>>
>>
>> No but it is often disruptive if ABI changes are in libraries in an
>> update and we should avoid that as much as possible. Â*This is part of
>> treating Fedora as a platform instead of a loose set of packages.
>
> How is it disruptive? Surely not because I have to rebuild the stuff I am
> developing myself and have to compile very often anyway… If it's stuff
> coming from a third-party repo, it's that repo's responsibility to rebuild
> the package and get it out together with the Fedora update.

«Â*Alright, today I'll be implementing feature XYZ in my Foobar program. »

[... a short hack later, testing the change...]

« Why doesn't it work? It was working fine last time I tried, what's happening »

[... an hour of debugging later...]

« $#@!%µ the Libbar librazy was updated and isn't compatible anymore.
Great, I just lost an hour trying to solve a problem in my program
when it was coming from an soname bump! Thank you (not) $distro
maintainer!!! »

I have a very short programming experience, and yet it already
happened to me. I can't imagine how little patience must remain for
those who have been facing this kind of problems for years. :-/


----------
Mathieu Bridon
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
 
Old 03-12-2010, 07:36 AM
Christof Damian
 
Default Stable Release Updates types proposal (was Fedora Board Meeting Recap 2010-03-11)

On Thu, Mar 11, 2010 at 20:12, Chris Adams <cmadams@hiwaay.net> wrote:
> Why not handle those cases similar to how GNOME and Firefox (and IIRC
> OpenOffice.org?) have been handled in the past, where a test/RC release
> was in Fedora leading up to the Fedora release, and the "final" upstream
> release is pushed as an update (if/when needed)? *Going from test/RC to
> final usuaully isn't going to involve major changes (soname bumps, UI
> changes, etc.) and so should be an acceptable update to everybody.

I think that this is the wrong way to go. Whenever this happened there
were a lot of complains from the users and sometimes from upstream.

It basically says we make the releases less stable by using a not
fully tested and finished upstream version, just so that we can have
more stable updates.

I like the idea of stable updates and just tracking upstream in
rawhide, but lets start to make the Fedora releases more stable first.
Otherwise everyone will push the newest broken alpha into rawhide just
before release, in the hope to patch it up with "stable" updates
afterwards.

A six month cycle is not a long time and having test/beta/RC versions
in there just for marketing doesn't make sense.

Christof
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
 
Old 03-12-2010, 10:06 AM
Thomas Janssen
 
Default Stable Release Updates types proposal (was Fedora Board Meeting Recap 2010-03-11)

On Fri, Mar 12, 2010 at 2:24 AM, Rahul Sundaram <metherid@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 03/12/2010 06:52 AM, Kevin Kofler wrote:
>> Rahul Sundaram wrote:
>>
>>> If you don't even agree with a basic principle that breaking ABI should be
>>> avoided in updates, we don't really have much left to discuss.
>>>
>> I don't see this as being a "basic principle" at all. For an enterprise
>> distro like RHEL or CentOS, sure. But not for something like Fedora. What
>> counts is that all software in Fedora depending on the library gets rebuilt
>> and pushed at the same time. (That's what grouped updates are for.) We do
>> not support third-party software.
>>
> I disagree. *Imagining that we are living in a island where no software
> exists outside the repository is just delusional and the assumption that
> everyone has the bandwidth to deal with all that churn is wrong as
> well. *I should make people sit in a dial-up connection and have them
> update software now and then to bring them back to the ground.

And i disagree here. People like that have to face that Fedora or any
similar distro isn't for them.
If they live in dial-up-land, they should use something like RHEL,
CentOS, Debian stable or whatever.
OR they learn to read documentation, understand the packagemanagement
and how to update only security fixes.

--
LG Thomas

Dubium sapientiae initium
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
 
Old 03-12-2010, 10:09 AM
Rahul Sundaram
 
Default Stable Release Updates types proposal (was Fedora Board Meeting Recap 2010-03-11)

On 03/12/2010 04:36 PM, Thomas Janssen wrote:
>
> And i disagree here. People like that have to face that Fedora or any
> similar distro isn't for them.
>

I don't see why you want to continue pushing off users instead of
working out a method that satisfies more users. Breaking ABI stability
gratuitously as has been done in the destabilises the platform and
causes unnecessary churn.

> If they live in dial-up-land, they should use something like RHEL,
> CentOS, Debian stable or whatever.
> OR they learn to read documentation, understand the packagemanagement
> and how to update only security fixes.
>

Have you tried sticking to security updates only? If you have done
that, you will know that it still doesn't save up much because updates
often pile up. The way it is done within Fedora, security fixes are
often new major upstream versions that suck in a lot of the enhancement
updates as dependencies.

Rahul
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
 
Old 03-12-2010, 10:33 AM
Thomas Janssen
 
Default Stable Release Updates types proposal (was Fedora Board Meeting Recap 2010-03-11)

On Fri, Mar 12, 2010 at 12:09 PM, Rahul Sundaram <metherid@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 03/12/2010 04:36 PM, Thomas Janssen wrote:
>>
>> And i disagree here. People like that have to face that Fedora or any
>> similar distro isn't for them.
>>
>
> I don't see why you want to continue pushing off users instead of
> working out a method that satisfies more users. *Breaking ABI stability
> gratuitously as has been done in the destabilises the platform and
> causes unnecessary churn.

I wasn't answering the ABI stability part. But the people-in-dial-up-land part.
I do understand both sides at the ABI breaking discussion.

>> If they live in dial-up-land, they should use something like RHEL,
>> CentOS, Debian stable or whatever.
>> OR they learn to read documentation, understand the packagemanagement
>> and how to update only security fixes.
>>
>
> Have you tried sticking to security updates only? *If you have done
> that, you will know that it still doesn't save up much because updates
> often pile up. *The way it is done within Fedora, security fixes are
> often new major upstream versions that suck in a lot of the enhancement
> updates as dependencies.

Not every time, but can happen yes. That's why i wrote, people have to
face that and use what fits their needs.
I have read all this mega-threads and i haven't found just a single
argument why it's good for Fedora to change away from what we are.

I do think some people really need to learn that testing updates is
essential and badly needed. Though that's nothing to explain the "make
Fedora more like RHEL" discussions. And now with the Boards vision it
will be.

So to be honest i can't see any reason why people still fight. It's
over from my POV. What will happen with Fedora, *shrugs*, we will see.

If you ask yourself why i answered on your post in the first place,
it's because i can't believe that dial-up-land user are really that
stubborn and use Fedora (and even worse try to change it) instead of
using what fits their needs. Sorry if 'stupid' hurts someones
feelings, but that's what i think about it.

Next time i buy a car, i will buy one who gets upgrades on a regular
base, but hard for me to get it in my country. I will then complain
and cry until they start to support me well. Sure i could buy a
different car that's older and needs just a bit oil from time to time,
but hey, this is a free world, i can change anything.

--
LG Thomas

Dubium sapientiae initium
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
 

Thread Tools




All times are GMT. The time now is 07:20 PM.

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