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, 09:50 PM
psmith
 
Default Stable Release Updates types proposal (was Fedora Board Meeting Recap 2010-03-11)

On 11/03/10 22:45, Kevin Kofler wrote:
> Chris Adams wrote:
>
>
>> Once upon a time, Paul Wouters<paul@xelerance.com> said:
>>
>>> That might be harsh for some soname updates. Six months is a long time
>>> to wait on new functionality after upstream released it.
>>>
>> People keep tossing out "six months". How often is it that a new Fedora
>> release comes out right before a new upstream, and that upstream is not
>> already in testing in Fedora?
>>
> The average is 3 months which is just as unreasonable.
>
>
>> For example (just an example - please don't take this as picking on
>> KDE!), KDE 4.4.0 was released on February 9, and F13 is scheduled for
>> May 11. That's a 3 month gap, not 6 months. In my opinion, I don't
>> think it is entirely unreasonable to wait 3 months for a major new
>> release.
>>
> I disagree. Sorry.
>
> Kevin Kofler
>
>
+1
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
 
Old 03-11-2010, 11:15 PM
Rahul Sundaram
 
Default Stable Release Updates types proposal (was Fedora Board Meeting Recap 2010-03-11)

On 03/12/2010 05:44 AM, Kevin Kofler wrote:
> Chris Adams wrote:
>
>> What about somebody developing on their own computer? 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. This is part of
treating Fedora as a platform instead of a loose set of packages.

Rahul
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
 
Old 03-11-2010, 11:44 PM
Kevin Kofler
 
Default Stable Release Updates types proposal (was Fedora Board Meeting Recap 2010-03-11)

Rahul Sundaram wrote:

> On 03/12/2010 05:44 AM, Kevin Kofler wrote:
>> Chris Adams wrote:
>>
>>> What about somebody developing on their own computer? 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. 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.

Kevin Kofler

--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
 
Old 03-12-2010, 07:01 AM
Rahul Sundaram
 
Default Stable Release Updates types proposal (was Fedora Board Meeting Recap 2010-03-11)

On 03/12/2010 01:12 PM, Matěj Cepl wrote:
> Dne 12.3.2010 02:24, Rahul Sundaram napsal(a):
>
>> 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.
>>
> Rahul, I used Debian, I know Debian, Debian was a friend of mine. I
> don't want Fedora to be just yet another copycat of Debian. Please keep
> it Fedora instead.
>

Caring about ABI stability a bit more does not make Fedora, Debian or
vice versa. There are lots of other differences.

Rahul
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
 
Old 03-12-2010, 08:35 AM
Andrew Haley
 
Default Stable Release Updates types proposal (was Fedora Board Meeting Recap 2010-03-11)

On 03/11/2010 11:36 PM, Chris Adams wrote:
> Once upon a time, Kevin Kofler <kevin.kofler@chello.at> said:
>> Matthew Garrett wrote:
>>> If a user has built an application against a library, it's not
>>> especially reasonable to then break that application by bumping a soname
>>> in a stable release.
>>
>> If the application is in Fedora as all applications eventually ought to be,
>> we will take care of rebuilding it. Otherwise, whoever built it (some third-
>> party repository or the user him/herself) is responsible for rebuilding it.
>> This has always worked fine, I don't see the problem.
>
> What about somebody developing on their own computer? Having to rebuild
> because you (or possibly somebody else, if a system has a dedicated
> admin) loaded an update is highly irritating.

It's a disaster if you're relying on a third-party compiled program
for your Internet connectivity. Imagine it: one morning you update,
then the connection breaks, then you can't get to the Internet to find
out how to get things working again.

Andrew.

--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
 
Old 03-12-2010, 11:23 AM
Andy Green
 
Default Stable Release Updates types proposal (was Fedora Board Meeting Recap 2010-03-11)

On 03/12/10 00:45, Somebody in the thread at some point said:

> If you are the user, then you should not be compiling software. :-) You
> should be using some repository and that repository is responsible for
> rebuilding the package.

I tend to agree with what you have been writing but this seems wrong.

I don't think I'm the only person who is using Fedora as a basis for
homegrown apps, if what I want isn't in Fedora (because I am creating it
locally) then I certainly will "compile software" as a Fedora user and
the case must be considered.

However I agree this isn't a real issue, the packages with the homegrown
apps should choke the yum update because they see the lib versions they
depend on would go away, so nothing breaks.

Then the pressure is on the homegrown software guy to uplevel which will
normally be a turnkey rebuild into a repo yum knows about and this seems
acceptable to me.

-Andy
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
 
Old 03-12-2010, 02:11 PM
Kevin Kofler
 
Default Stable Release Updates types proposal (was Fedora Board Meeting Recap 2010-03-11)

Andy Green wrote:

> On 03/12/10 00:45, Somebody in the thread at some point said:
>
>> If you are the user, then you should not be compiling software. :-) You
>> should be using some repository and that repository is responsible for
>> rebuilding the package.
>
> I tend to agree with what you have been writing but this seems wrong.
>
> I don't think I'm the only person who is using Fedora as a basis for
> homegrown apps, if what I want isn't in Fedora (because I am creating it
> locally) then I certainly will "compile software" as a Fedora user and
> the case must be considered.

Uh, please read the context of my statement!

I wrote:
> 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.

Simo Sorce replied:
> It is if you are not the developer but the user.

And I replied:
> If you are the user, then you should not be compiling software. :-)

In this context, if you're writing homegrown apps, you're a "developer", not
a "user", so the above sentence obviously does not apply. Instead, my
original point does (you'll be compiling your own software very often
anyway).

Kevin Kofler

--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
 
Old 03-12-2010, 02:14 PM
Kevin Kofler
 
Default Stable Release Updates types proposal (was Fedora Board Meeting Recap 2010-03-11)

Andrew Haley wrote:
> It's a disaster if you're relying on a third-party compiled program
> for your Internet connectivity. Imagine it: one morning you update,
> then the connection breaks, then you can't get to the Internet to find
> out how to get things working again.

And why would we want to support that?

Kevin Kofler

--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
 
Old 03-12-2010, 03:38 PM
Peter Jones
 
Default Stable Release Updates types proposal (was Fedora Board Meeting Recap 2010-03-11)

On 03/11/2010 05:47 PM, Kevin Kofler wrote:
> Matthew Garrett wrote:
>
>> On Thu, Mar 11, 2010 at 01:52:06PM -0500, Paul Wouters wrote:
>>
>>> That might be harsh for some soname updates.
>>
>> If a user has built an application against a library, it's not
>> especially reasonable to then break that application by bumping a soname
>> in a stable release.
>
> If the application is in Fedora as all applications eventually ought
> to be, we will take care of rebuilding it.

There are so many things wrong with this premise, it's hard to formulate an
email. The first is that your ideal world scenario here isn't very realistic -
there are, for example, programs which have intentionally been removed from
Fedora, and for good reasons. That doesn't mean nobody has rebuilt them and
wants them to stay working.

It also implies that we're okay shipping updates of whole dep chains for any
bug whatsoever in a stable release. This is a gigantic problem! Many people
have complained about this - it uses much more bandwidth and storage, even with
deltas (in fact, significantly more storage with deltas), and for very little
appreciable benefit.

This is a bad plan.

--
Peter

When in doubt, debug-on-entry the function you least suspect has
anything to do with something.
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
 
Old 03-12-2010, 03:46 PM
Rahul Sundaram
 
Default Stable Release Updates types proposal (was Fedora Board Meeting Recap 2010-03-11)

On 03/12/2010 10:12 PM, Ewan Mac Mahon wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 12, 2010 at 08:24:15PM +0530, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
>
>> On 03/12/2010 08:24 PM, Kevin Kofler wrote:
>>
>>> Rahul Sundaram wrote:
>>>
>>> If the infrastructure sucks where you live, what needs to happen is that the
>>> infrastructure needs to improve, not that the whole world adapts to stone-
>>> age infrastructure.
>>>
>>>
>> This is extremely poor attitude Kevin and reeks of arrogance. Talking
>> down on users and contributors who don't have the privilege of high
>> bandwidth connections isn't what I expected from you. Nothing left to say.
>>
>>
> That's rather unfair. Fedora already has minimum system requirements,
> and they're not small.
>

Yes but I would never call people who use systems that are older either
because of their economic condition or scarcity of good infrastructure
as being in the stone age. We might not be able to cater to them but
there is a big difference between that and talking down the audience you
aren't able to serve.

Rahul
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
 

Thread Tools




All times are GMT. The time now is 10:26 PM.

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