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, 12:21 AM
Michał Piotrowski
 
Default Fedora "backports" repo? (Was PostgreSQL 9 for F14?)

2010/9/21 Jeff Spaleta <jspaleta@gmail.com>:
> 2010/9/20 Michał Piotrowski <mkkp4x4@gmail.com>:
>> Setting up "official" backport repo will avoid repos fragmentation.
>
> Another repository/branch inside Fedora infrastructure does not
> automatically avoid the any of the potential problems that you would
> want to lump into "repo fragmentation." You'd have to take great care
> in crafting packing policy to prevent any repository interaction
> problems concerning dependency chains, conflicts,obsoletes, parallel
> installation, upgrade paths, etc.
>
>> Keeping all cool updates in one place appears to be a reasonable idea.
> Define cool.

Firefox 4, Postgres 9, Cherokee 2, OpenOffice 4, Duke Nukem Forever

> *Does this mean that uncool updates would be excluded as
> a matter of policy?

Yes. Most users don't care about libfoo 1.6.54 -> libfoo 1.7.0 upgrade.

> I'm not sure we all live in a world where a PostgreSQL 9 backport is _cool_.

It's cool if you have strange problems with PgPool

>
> -jef

Regards,
Michal
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
 
Old 09-21-2010, 12:31 AM
Jeff Spaleta
 
Default Fedora "backports" repo? (Was PostgreSQL 9 for F14?)

2010/9/20 Michał Piotrowski <mkkp4x4@gmail.com>:
> Yes. Most users don't care about libfoo 1.6.54 -> libfoo 1.7.0 upgrade.
> It's cool if you have strange problems with PgPool


You understand that what you have just describe is not easily wrapped
into a self-consistent policy right? There are undoubtably "strange
problems" one one sort of another which impact "niche users" across
the existing packagescape and backports to address their problems
would not meet any reasonable definition that relied on the
anticipated desires of "most users." Every conceivable possible
update will most likely solve a problem for someone. You haven't
really sketched out a policy by which any reasonable person or persons
could judge suitability of a particular potential update and exclude
it from such a backports repository.

-jef
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
 
Old 09-21-2010, 12:43 AM
Adam Williamson
 
Default Fedora "backports" repo? (Was PostgreSQL 9 for F14?)

On Mon, 2010-09-20 at 16:31 -0800, Jeff Spaleta wrote:
> 2010/9/20 Michał Piotrowski <mkkp4x4@gmail.com>:
> > Yes. Most users don't care about libfoo 1.6.54 -> libfoo 1.7.0 upgrade.
> > It's cool if you have strange problems with PgPool
>
>
> You understand that what you have just describe is not easily wrapped
> into a self-consistent policy right? There are undoubtably "strange
> problems" one one sort of another which impact "niche users" across
> the existing packagescape and backports to address their problems
> would not meet any reasonable definition that relied on the
> anticipated desires of "most users." Every conceivable possible
> update will most likely solve a problem for someone. You haven't
> really sketched out a policy by which any reasonable person or persons
> could judge suitability of a particular potential update and exclude
> it from such a backports repository.

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.
--
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, 01:58 AM
Arthur Pemberton
 
Default Fedora "backports" repo? (Was PostgreSQL 9 for F14?)

2010/9/20 Michał Piotrowski <mkkp4x4@gmail.com>:
> 2010/9/21 Toshio Kuratomi <a.badger@gmail.com>:
>> As the concept of using third party repositories (both as packagers and as
>> users) grows, this interdependence will grow.
>
> 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?


--
Fedora 13
(www.pembo13.com)
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
 
Old 09-21-2010, 03:35 AM
Bruno Wolff III
 
Default Fedora "backports" repo? (Was PostgreSQL 9 for F14?)

On Tue, Sep 21, 2010 at 01:51:03 +0200,
Michał Piotrowski <mkkp4x4@gmail.com> 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?

If we had infinite manpower this might be doable on request. As things are,
the people that want to do this need to volunteer to do work to make it
happen. A good start would be setting up external repos and try to
maintain some group of rawhide packages for the in support releases.
If this was succesful, I expect getting Fedora infrastructure to make it
more official would be possible.
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
 
Old 09-21-2010, 03:48 AM
Toshio Kuratomi
 
Default Fedora "backports" repo? (Was PostgreSQL 9 for F14?)

On Mon, Sep 20, 2010 at 10:35:47PM -0500, Bruno Wolff III wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 21, 2010 at 01:51:03 +0200,
> Michał Piotrowski <mkkp4x4@gmail.com> 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?
>
> If we had infinite manpower this might be doable on request. As things are,
> the people that want to do this need to volunteer to do work to make it
> happen. A good start would be setting up external repos and try to
> maintain some group of rawhide packages for the in support releases.
> If this was succesful, I expect getting Fedora infrastructure to make it
> more official would be possible.
>
Yeah, I'd leverage this:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedorapeople_Repos

set up a repo; use fs acls to let a group of people manage it together. See
how it goes.

-Toshio
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
 
Old 09-21-2010, 04:03 AM
Jon Masters
 
Default Fedora "backports" repo? (Was PostgreSQL 9 for F14?)

On Mon, 2010-09-20 at 21:58 -0400, Arthur Pemberton wrote:
> 2010/9/20 Michał Piotrowski <mkkp4x4@gmail.com>:
> > 2010/9/21 Toshio Kuratomi <a.badger@gmail.com>:
> >> As the concept of using third party repositories (both as packagers and as
> >> users) grows, this interdependence will grow.
> >
> > 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?

That they sometimes horribly break, change behavior (in any way), or
otherwise affect the smooth consistency of using a system and upgrading
daily, without actively discouraging upgrades for fear of breakage
(which is what Fedora has been doing for me, as an example). The fear is
also that people are not comprehending the difference between a released
Operating System Platform and a random collection of moving targets.

> Are there many
> desktop users who do NOT want the latest released Firefox?

Yup. I don't want it. I don't care about it and I'm uninterested in
having the latest version. I'd like the version I have currently
installed to get security fixes, but I don't want Firefox 4 on my
desktop system right now. I'll leave it on my development box running
rawhide and poke at it for testing, but I *DO NOT* want it released.

> Are there
> many people using Fedora as their OS for their database server?

If you mean does postgres matter, I've got an old non-Fedora box I'd
love to replace with Fedora, and it runs MySQL (amongst other things). I
can't replace it (using either database) until such time as Fedora has a
decent update policy though. So saying "nobody uses Fedora on the
server" is a sure fire way of perpetuating that sad reality.

I also care far more about server bits than I care about Firefox or my
desktop in general. I want a web browser, but I'll take any web browser
that works reasonably well enough. Similarly, I want a GUI of some kind,
but I don't care if it's enlightenment 0.17 if need be so long as it
doesn't ever change from one day to the next. I love the backports repo
idea. Ubuntu has been doing this for ages with their LTS releases, and
it's a nice way to pull in stuff like a more recent spamassassin without
having to upgrade the rest of the operating system, or change what works
out of the box in the default install path. So +1 to the idea in Fedora.

Jon.


--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
 
Old 09-21-2010, 04:29 AM
Gerald Henriksen
 
Default Fedora "backports" repo? (Was PostgreSQL 9 for F14?)

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?

What if you have decided that Fedora is an easier path to a server
rather than attempting to backport a lot of packages because the
current release of RHEL/CentOS is 3 years old and doesn't have what
you need in term of framework or language?

What if you are a college that has deployed Fedora to use for your
students coursework, and an upgrade to a language/database/etc breaks
things mid-semester?

Fedora is used in a lot of different ways.

Gerald
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
 
Old 09-21-2010, 04:36 AM
Arthur Pemberton
 
Default Fedora "backports" repo? (Was PostgreSQL 9 for F14?)

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.

> What if you have decided that Fedora is an easier path to a server
> rather than attempting to backport a lot of packages because the
> current release of RHEL/CentOS is 3 years old and doesn't have what
> you need in term of framework or language?

The same thing suggested here for new packages.

> What if you are a college that has deployed Fedora to use for your
> students coursework, and an upgrade to a language/database/etc breaks
> things mid-semester?

You test updates before you deploy them.

> Fedora is used in a lot of different ways.

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


--
Fedora 13
(www.pembo13.com)
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
 
Old 09-21-2010, 04:38 AM
Jon Masters
 
Default Fedora "backports" repo? (Was PostgreSQL 9 for F14?)

On Tue, 2010-09-21 at 00:29 -0400, Gerald Henriksen 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?
>
> What if you have decided that Fedora is an easier path to a server
> rather than attempting to backport a lot of packages because the
> current release of RHEL/CentOS is 3 years old and doesn't have what
> you need in term of framework or language?
>
> What if you are a college that has deployed Fedora to use for your
> students coursework, and an upgrade to a language/database/etc breaks
> things mid-semester?

Also...

What if you have a life outside computing and would like to run Fedora
at home but don't want to fix breakage on the weekend (because that
ceased to be fun after ten years, and once college was over with)?

> Fedora is used in a lot of different ways.

Yes, it is, and it should be. Fixing updates is the number one problem,
right behind having a long term strategy.

Jon.


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

Thread Tools




All times are GMT. The time now is 10:32 AM.

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