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 09-21-2010, 04:45 AM
Arthur Pemberton
 
Default Fedora "backports" repo? (Was PostgreSQL 9 for F14?)

I apologize for interrupting this tread. I shall take my leave.
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
 
Old 09-21-2010, 08:49 AM
Michel Alexandre Salim
 
Default Fedora "backports" repo? (Was PostgreSQL 9 for F14?)

On Tue, 21 Sep 2010 01:43:43 +0100, Adam Williamson wrote:

> The Mandriva policy is a reasonable starting point:
>
> http://wiki.mandriva.com/en/Policies/SoftwareMedia#Backports_policy
>
> it's sketchy and not greatly written, but the basic idea is that
> backports should only be 'leaf' packages (things on which nothing else
> depends) and libs required _only_ by the packages that are being
> backported. Packages on which other, unrelated packages depend shouldn't
> be backported.

Sounds like the only way to package Firefox under such a backport scheme
would be to bundle Gecko etc.

--
Michel Alexandre Salim
Fedora Project Contributor: http://fedoraproject.org/

Email: salimma@fedoraproject.org | GPG key ID: 78884778
Jabber: hircus@jabber.ccc.de | IRC: hircus@irc.freenode.net

() ascii ribbon campaign - against html e-mail
/ www.asciiribbon.org - against proprietary attachments

--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
 
Old 09-21-2010, 09:11 AM
Adam Williamson
 
Default Fedora "backports" repo? (Was PostgreSQL 9 for F14?)

On Tue, 2010-09-21 at 08:49 +0000, Michel Alexandre Salim wrote:
> On Tue, 21 Sep 2010 01:43:43 +0100, Adam Williamson wrote:
>
> > The Mandriva policy is a reasonable starting point:
> >
> > http://wiki.mandriva.com/en/Policies/SoftwareMedia#Backports_policy
> >
> > it's sketchy and not greatly written, but the basic idea is that
> > backports should only be 'leaf' packages (things on which nothing else
> > depends) and libs required _only_ by the packages that are being
> > backported. Packages on which other, unrelated packages depend shouldn't
> > be backported.
>
> Sounds like the only way to package Firefox under such a backport scheme
> would be to bundle Gecko etc.

Yup. In MDV, Firefox isn't/wasn't allowed under the backports
guidelines. I think this makes sense given how important it is and how
easy it is to break other stuff by touching Firefox. Some stuff just
isn't right for a backports repo.
--
Adam Williamson
Fedora QA Community Monkey
IRC: adamw | Fedora Talk: adamwill AT fedoraproject DOT org
http://www.happyassassin.net

--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
 
Old 09-21-2010, 09:12 AM
Rahul Sundaram
 
Default Fedora "backports" repo? (Was PostgreSQL 9 for F14?)

On 09/21/2010 02:19 PM, Michel Alexandre Salim wrote:
> On Tue, 21 Sep 2010 01:43:43 +0100, Adam Williamson wrote:
>
>> The Mandriva policy is a reasonable starting point:
>>
>> http://wiki.mandriva.com/en/Policies/SoftwareMedia#Backports_policy
>>
>> it's sketchy and not greatly written, but the basic idea is that
>> backports should only be 'leaf' packages (things on which nothing else
>> depends) and libs required _only_ by the packages that are being
>> backported. Packages on which other, unrelated packages depend shouldn't
>> be backported.
> Sounds like the only way to package Firefox under such a backport scheme
> would be to bundle Gecko etc.

Yep. For a number of important packages, we have to resort to bundling
libraries if we go this route. Other distros like Ubuntu are already
doing this for their main Firefox packages. It might be a trade off
worth considering for backport repo if one exists.

Rahul

--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
 
Old 09-21-2010, 09:30 AM
Michał Piotrowski
 
Default Fedora "backports" repo? (Was PostgreSQL 9 for F14?)

2010/9/21 Adam Williamson <awilliam@redhat.com>:
> On Tue, 2010-09-21 at 08:49 +0000, Michel Alexandre Salim wrote:
>> Sounds like the only way to package Firefox under such a backport scheme
>> would be to bundle Gecko etc.
>
> Yup. In MDV, Firefox isn't/wasn't allowed under the backports
> guidelines. I think this makes sense given how important it is and how
> easy it is to break other stuff by touching Firefox. Some stuff just
> isn't right for a backports repo.

It seems to me that backports repo should be treated on a different
basis by developers and users than any other official repos.

I do not expect that it will have the normal technical support. I do
not expect that the installation of package from the will not break
anything. This should be something like "use at your own risk if you
want some newer packages, but do not expect that it will work
completely without any problem with official Fedora repo and other
repos like rpmfusion etc"

> --
> Adam Williamson
> Fedora QA Community Monkey
> IRC: adamw | Fedora Talk: adamwill AT fedoraproject DOT org
> http://www.happyassassin.net

Regards,
Michal
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
 
Old 09-21-2010, 11:49 AM
Michael Schwendt
 
Default Fedora "backports" repo? (Was PostgreSQL 9 for F14?)

On Tue, 21 Sep 2010 01:51:03 +0200, Michał wrote:

> Setting up "official" backport repo will avoid repos fragmentation.
> Keeping all cool updates in one place appears to be a reasonable idea.
> Am I right?

Wait a minute! You need to define "fragmentation" here. It seems you refer
to the geographical location of repos only. More important is the
fragmentation caused by increasing the number of repos, especially if they
create additional targets to build for. Considering how APIs/ABIs and
stable packages are broken regularly, I don't think Fedora Packagers
could handle the increased maintenance requirements added by a backports
repo. Whether "official" or not, just imagine what can happen
if repo 1 upgrades repo 2, or vice versa, and unexpectedly. Better
attempt at making the current dist release usable/deployable in
production environments, and encourage more users to take a look at
Rawhide and Alpha/Beta releases earlier.

--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
 
Old 09-21-2010, 12:01 PM
Adam Williamson
 
Default Fedora "backports" repo? (Was PostgreSQL 9 for F14?)

On Tue, 2010-09-21 at 13:49 +0200, Michael Schwendt wrote:
> On Tue, 21 Sep 2010 01:51:03 +0200, Michał wrote:
>
> > Setting up "official" backport repo will avoid repos fragmentation.
> > Keeping all cool updates in one place appears to be a reasonable idea.
> > Am I right?
>
> Wait a minute! You need to define "fragmentation" here. It seems you refer
> to the geographical location of repos only. More important is the
> fragmentation caused by increasing the number of repos, especially if they
> create additional targets to build for. Considering how APIs/ABIs and
> stable packages are broken regularly, I don't think Fedora Packagers
> could handle the increased maintenance requirements added by a backports
> repo. Whether "official" or not, just imagine what can happen
> if repo 1 upgrades repo 2, or vice versa, and unexpectedly. Better
> attempt at making the current dist release usable/deployable in
> production environments, and encourage more users to take a look at
> Rawhide and Alpha/Beta releases earlier.

I think he meant the same thing as you. He wasn't using 'place'
literally.
--
Adam Williamson
Fedora QA Community Monkey
IRC: adamw | Fedora Talk: adamwill AT fedoraproject DOT org
http://www.happyassassin.net

--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
 
Old 09-21-2010, 02:20 PM
Brandon Lozza
 
Default Fedora "backports" repo? (Was PostgreSQL 9 for F14?)

One thing I wanted to point out. Windows users get to install the
latest Firefox, KDE, and other apps without having to wait for a new
Windows release. If users had to wait for Windows 8 to get the latest
Firefox, things would be messy. I don't understand what the fear is of
doing this on GNU/Linux.

On Tue, Sep 21, 2010 at 8:01 AM, Adam Williamson <awilliam@redhat.com> wrote:
> On Tue, 2010-09-21 at 13:49 +0200, Michael Schwendt wrote:
>> On Tue, 21 Sep 2010 01:51:03 +0200, Michał wrote:
>>
>> > Setting up "official" backport repo will avoid repos fragmentation.
>> > Keeping all cool updates in one place appears to be a reasonable idea.
>> > Am I right?
>>
>> Wait a minute! You need to define "fragmentation" here. It seems you refer
>> to the geographical location of repos only. More important is the
>> fragmentation caused by increasing the number of repos, especially if they
>> create additional targets to build for. Considering how APIs/ABIs and
>> stable packages are broken regularly, I don't think Fedora Packagers
>> could handle the increased maintenance requirements added by a backports
>> repo. Whether "official" or not, just imagine what can happen
>> if repo 1 upgrades repo 2, or vice versa, and unexpectedly. Better
>> attempt at making the current dist release usable/deployable in
>> production environments, and encourage more users to take a look at
>> Rawhide and Alpha/Beta releases earlier.
>
> I *think he meant the same thing as you. He wasn't using 'place'
> literally.
> --
> Adam Williamson
> Fedora QA Community Monkey
> IRC: adamw | Fedora Talk: adamwill AT fedoraproject DOT org
> http://www.happyassassin.net
>
> --
> 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
 
Old 09-21-2010, 02:20 PM
Brandon Lozza
 
Default Fedora "backports" repo? (Was PostgreSQL 9 for F14?)

Is GNU/Linux supposed to be a mirror into software's past?

On Tue, Sep 21, 2010 at 10:20 AM, Brandon Lozza <brandon@pwnage.ca> wrote:
> One thing I wanted to point out. Windows users get to install the
> latest Firefox, KDE, and other apps without having to wait for a new
> Windows release. If users had to wait for Windows 8 to get the latest
> Firefox, things would be messy. I don't understand what the fear is of
> doing this on GNU/Linux.
>
> On Tue, Sep 21, 2010 at 8:01 AM, Adam Williamson <awilliam@redhat.com> wrote:
>> On Tue, 2010-09-21 at 13:49 +0200, Michael Schwendt wrote:
>>> On Tue, 21 Sep 2010 01:51:03 +0200, Michał wrote:
>>>
>>> > Setting up "official" backport repo will avoid repos fragmentation.
>>> > Keeping all cool updates in one place appears to be a reasonable idea.
>>> > Am I right?
>>>
>>> Wait a minute! You need to define "fragmentation" here. It seems you refer
>>> to the geographical location of repos only. More important is the
>>> fragmentation caused by increasing the number of repos, especially if they
>>> create additional targets to build for. Considering how APIs/ABIs and
>>> stable packages are broken regularly, I don't think Fedora Packagers
>>> could handle the increased maintenance requirements added by a backports
>>> repo. Whether "official" or not, just imagine what can happen
>>> if repo 1 upgrades repo 2, or vice versa, and unexpectedly. Better
>>> attempt at making the current dist release usable/deployable in
>>> production environments, and encourage more users to take a look at
>>> Rawhide and Alpha/Beta releases earlier.
>>
>> I *think he meant the same thing as you. He wasn't using 'place'
>> literally.
>> --
>> Adam Williamson
>> Fedora QA Community Monkey
>> IRC: adamw | Fedora Talk: adamwill AT fedoraproject DOT org
>> http://www.happyassassin.net
>>
>> --
>> 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
 
Old 09-21-2010, 02:30 PM
Gerald Henriksen
 
Default Fedora "backports" repo? (Was PostgreSQL 9 for F14?)

On Tue, 21 Sep 2010 00:36:46 -0400, you wrote:

>On Tue, Sep 21, 2010 at 12:29 AM, Gerald Henriksen <ghenriks@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Mon, 20 Sep 2010 21:58:53 -0400, you wrote:
>>
>>>2010/9/20 Micha? Piotrowski <mkkp4x4@gmail.com>:
>>>> Ok, so maybe it's time to setup Fedora "backports" repo for these that
>>>> wants new and shiny Firefox 4, PostgreSQL 9 or whatever with big
>>>> number.
>>>
>>>What exactly is the fear here with these updates? Are there many
>>>desktop users who do NOT want the latest released Firefox? Are there
>>>many people using Fedora as their OS for their database server?
>>
>> What if you are using a Firefox extension that hasn't been ported to
>> the latest release yet?
>
>You don't update Firefox till the extension comes out.

And if there is a security update required that makes updating Firefox
mandatory, what then? Fedora wouldn't be packaging the latest Firefox
3.* because under you scenario Firefox is at version 4.

>Sure, but I thought Fedora was all about pushing new, free software.

It is, in two ways. One, Fedora makes releases every 6 months where
new software can debut without worrrying about backwards
compatibility. Secondly, for those more adventurous, you can run
Rawhide which (subject to the packagers) can always have the just
released versions.

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

Thread Tools




All times are GMT. The time now is 07:03 AM.

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