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 03-12-2010, 12:24 AM
Rahul Sundaram
 
Default Stable Release Updates types proposal (was Fedora Board Meeting Recap 2010-03-11)

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.

Rahul

--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
 
Old 03-12-2010, 07:05 AM
Terry Barnaby
 
Default Stable Release Updates types proposal (was Fedora Board Meeting Recap 2010-03-11)

On 12/03/10 03:42, Kevin Kofler wrote:
> Chris Adams wrote:
>> There's a difference between not supporting third-party software (is
>> that actually documented somewhere or another Kevin Kofler rule?) and
>> intentionally breaking it.
>
> There's no policy saying we support it, ergo by default, we don't.
>
> And we don't intentionally break it, we upgrade a library for some good
> reason (there's always a good reason why a soname bump gets pushed) and that
> happens to break some third-party software we don't and can't know about.
> (When we do, e.g. for software in RPM Fusion, we alert the affected
> maintainers so they can rebuild their packages.)
>
> For example, Firefox security updates are impossible to do without ABI
> breaks in xulrunner.
>
> Kevin Kofler
>
I really strongly disagree that ABI interfaces of the mainly used
shared libraries could be allowed to change in a "stable" release.
We develop internal applications that are packaged and go out to a few
users. We use Fedora primarily as an OS to run applications we need
rather than an experimentation platform.
I consider it unacceptable for a system "update" to break the
ABI for these and any other third-party packages. It would mean failures
in the field that would require live intervention. This is what
rawhide is for.
We would end up by turning off Fedora updating on these systems and in
effect manage the updates of the system ourselves probably from our own
repository (our own Fedora spin) or, probably move to a different system.
I am sure a lot of users, like us, use Fedora for there own purposes and
develop there own applications for it, but do not maintain them in the
main Fedora package tree. There's more to Fedora than just the main Fedora
repository...

Terry
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
 
Old 03-12-2010, 01:54 PM
Kevin Kofler
 
Default Stable Release Updates types proposal (was Fedora Board Meeting Recap 2010-03-11)

Rahul Sundaram wrote:
> 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.

I don't see why we should cripple our distribution just to support
communication technologies from the 80s or 90s. It's 2010 now, those
technologies are over 10 years out of date!

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. Bandwidth is required for many more applications than
just fetching Fedora updates.

Kevin Kofler

--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
 
Old 03-12-2010, 02:07 PM
Kevin Kofler
 
Default Stable Release Updates types proposal (was Fedora Board Meeting Recap 2010-03-11)

Terry Barnaby wrote:
> I really strongly disagree that ABI interfaces of the mainly used
> shared libraries could be allowed to change in a "stable" release.
> We develop internal applications that are packaged and go out to a few
> users. We use Fedora primarily as an OS to run applications we need
> rather than an experimentation platform.

Then you as the provider of those applications are responsible for
rebuilding them.

> I consider it unacceptable for a system "update" to break the
> ABI for these and any other third-party packages. It would mean failures
> in the field that would require live intervention. This is what
> rawhide is for.
> We would end up by turning off Fedora updating on these systems and in
> effect manage the updates of the system ourselves probably from our own
> repository (our own Fedora spin) or, probably move to a different system.
> I am sure a lot of users, like us, use Fedora for there own purposes and
> develop there own applications for it, but do not maintain them in the
> main Fedora package tree. There's more to Fedora than just the main Fedora
> repository...

Why are you using the conditional tense? Fedora CURRENTLY does NOT provide
any ABI guarantees. There ARE ALREADY updates which change the ABI (you
recognize them as they are normally grouped with rebuilds of other stuff for
the bumped ABI). The people who want to change things are the ones who DON'T
want to allow soname bumps. The only reason the core libraries you use are
apparently not affected is that those libraries are used by so many packages
that rebuilding them all would be impractical.

That said, this also leads to a possible solution: we could make a short
list of "core" libraries for which soname bumps would be impractical to
perform in a release, which would then also double as some form of ABI
guarantee.

Kevin Kofler

--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
 
Old 03-12-2010, 02:40 PM
Chris Adams
 
Default Stable Release Updates types proposal (was Fedora Board Meeting Recap 2010-03-11)

Once upon a time, Kevin Kofler <kevin.kofler@chello.at> said:
> I don't see why we should cripple our distribution just to support
> communication technologies from the 80s or 90s. It's 2010 now, those
> technologies are over 10 years out of date!
>
> 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. Bandwidth is required for many more applications than
> just fetching Fedora updates.

That is just completely out of touch with reality. We live in the real
world and have to deal with real problems; you can't just wave a magic
wand and make them go away.
--
Chris Adams <cmadams@hiwaay.net>
Systems and Network Administrator - HiWAAY Internet Services
I don't speak for anybody but myself - that's enough trouble.
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
 
Old 03-12-2010, 07:06 PM
Jonathan Dieter
 
Default Stable Release Updates types proposal (was Fedora Board Meeting Recap 2010-03-11)

On Fri, 2010-03-12 at 20:51 +0100, Kevin Kofler wrote:
> Eric Sandeen wrote:
> > Be sure to let our friends in developing countries know that to make
> > Fedora's life easier, they'd better get their infrastructure updated
> > pronto?
>
> Developing countries need to, well, DEVELOP their infrastructure. In the
> meantime, there are plenty of distributions with fewer updates the people
> unlucky enough to be stuck with such outdated infrastructure can use. We
> shouldn't let the whole world be restricted by limitations of 80s or 90s
> infrastructure out of some misguided principle of inclusiveness or, worse,
> political correctness. There needs to be SOME distribution targeted at
> modern infrastructure, using the possibilities modern technology allows, and
> Fedora is a good candidate, due to our history and objectives. The only
> long-term solution to the problem is for those people to get access to
> contemporary technologies anyway. If you really want to help these people,
> you need to contribute to efforts to upgrade their technology, e.g. through
> monetary donations, participation in infrastructure projects etc. Turning
> Fedora into a conservative distribution is only a misguided attempt at
> curing the symptoms, it does nothing to solve the true problem.

So until we get faster Internet, forget about us? You're awfully quick
to write off a huge part of the world so that Fedora can match *your*
vision for it.

Thanks for the party, I'll see myself out.

Jonathan
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
 
Old 03-15-2010, 04:15 PM
Rahul Sundaram
 
Default Stable Release Updates types proposal (was Fedora Board Meeting Recap 2010-03-11)

On 03/15/2010 10:37 PM, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
> On 03/15/2010 05:36 PM, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
>
>
>> Progressive and aggressive is all fine as part of development branches
>> as far as I am concerned. Several other distributions take care of this
>> disjoint nature by splitting up the repository and having two different
>> update streams. With a smaller amount of additional maintenance burden,
>> we can do this as well.
>>
> Your claim is self-contradictory: Additional repos mean additional
> maintenance burden and additional complexity.
>
Err, where is the contradiction? I did clear point out that there is a
additional maintenance burden involved in this but if there is a
necessity for faster updates, it will happen anyway and it already has
elsewhere for various reasons.

> Or did I read your request incorrectly and you are proposing to
> reintroduce a Core+Extra's split?
>

You did read it incorrectly. Splitting up the update stream doesn't
involve going back to core+extras at all. KDE has a additional repo
already in kde-redhat.sf.net where they have first builds before they
get into the official updates repo.. Accommodating such workflows
within the Fedora infrastructure would allow people who want to move a
newer KDE in older versions, the choice to do so more easily.

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 03:12 PM.

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