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 04-09-2008, 04:36 PM
Jason L Tibbitts III
 
Default Summary of the 2008-04-08 Packaging Committee meeting

Meeting minutes and full logs of the packaging committee meeting which
occurred on 2008-04-08 are online:

http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Minutes
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Minutes20080408

The following drafts are now official guidelines, having been accepted
by FESCO last week:
* SysV-style initscript guidelines:
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/SysVInitScript
* Java packaging guidelines:
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Java
* Eclipse plugin guidelines:
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/EclipsePlugins
* GCJGuidelines:
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/GCJGuidelines

These should be written into the guidelines soon if this hasn't
already been done by the time you read this.

Issues pending FESCO ratification:

* No packages may own files or dirs in /srv
* http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackagingDrafts/NoBitsInSrv
* This is a new draft this week
* Target release: F10 (including fixing noncompliant packages by
then)
* Accepted (6 - 0)
* Voting for: tibbs spot Rathann abadger1999 racor hansg rdieter

* Update the GCJ guidelines to require that it be called
conditionally
* http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackagingDrafts/ConditionalGCJ
* A modification to the existing GCJ guidelines, new this week.
* Accepted (6 - 0)
* Voting for: abadger1999 spot tibbs rdieter Rathann hansg


Other business:

* Naming all packages in lowercase
* http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackagingDrafts/ASCIINamingLowercase
* This is a new draft.
* Not Accepted (1 - 4)
* Voting for: agadger1999
* Voting against: tibbs spot hansg racor
* Abstaining: Rathann rdieter

* Revisiting the jpackagage naming exception
* The original exception is at
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/JPackagePolicy; the
committee is revisiting the exception.
* The committee requests from the Java group "a list of information
as to why they need the jpp tag, specifically, how they're using
it, by May 8th." The committee will revisit the issue then.
* Accepted (5 - 0)
* Voting for: tibbs abadger1999 spot rdieter hansg

* Sugar Activity Guidelines
* http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/DennisGilmore/SugarActivityGuidelines
* A new draft this week
* Some issues were identified:
* arch-specific activities should not install under /usr/share
* /usr/share/activities is rather generic
* The draft is tabled until the next meeting.

The meeting ended with a long discussion of the packaging of static
libraries and the conditions under which static libraries are
allowable in the -devel pacuage. This was triggered by the discussion
in https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=430545. There was no
written proposal.

Next meeting in two weeks: 2008-04-22.

- J<

--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
 
Old 05-07-2008, 06:29 PM
Deepak Bhole
 
Default Summary of the 2008-04-08 Packaging Committee meeting

* Jason L Tibbitts III <tibbs@math.uh.edu> [2008-04-09 12:37]:
> Meeting minutes and full logs of the packaging committee meeting which
> occurred on 2008-04-08 are online:
>
> http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Minutes
> http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Minutes20080408
>
>
> * Revisiting the jpackagage naming exception
> * The original exception is at
> http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/JPackagePolicy; the
> committee is revisiting the exception.
> * The committee requests from the Java group "a list of information
> as to why they need the jpp tag, specifically, how they're using
> it, by May 8th." The committee will revisit the issue then.
> * Accepted (5 - 0)
> * Voting for: tibbs abadger1999 spot rdieter hansg
>

A page detailing the reasons for keeping the exception is now up on the
wiki:

http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/DeepakBhole/ReasonsForKeepingJPP

Deepak

--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
 
Old 05-12-2008, 05:03 PM
"Tom "spot" Callaway"
 
Default Summary of the 2008-04-08 Packaging Committee meeting

On Wed, 2008-05-07 at 14:29 -0400, Deepak Bhole wrote:

> A page detailing the reasons for keeping the exception is now up on the
> wiki:
>
> http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/DeepakBhole/ReasonsForKeepingJPP

Deepak, thanks for writing that up. Seth Vidal has helped me come up
with a technical solution that should meet the requirements described in
your document.

http://skvidal.fedorapeople.org/misc/exclude-by-group/

This is a very simple yum plugin that enables the user to exclude by RPM
Group tag. Since the RPM Group tag is not standardized in any way in
Fedora packages (aside from the fact that it must be present), it should
be possible for all JPackage RPMs in Fedora to have a unique string in
the Group field (it could be JPackage, Java, jpp, Java/JPackage or
GiantGilaMonster).

To address your reasons:

* This plugin enables the grouping operations to exclude JPackage RPMs
in Fedora
* This enables JPackage to use Fedora as their development OS
* This enables people wishing to deploy an entire JPackage stack
* By identifying JPackage in the Group field, it gives credit to the
JPackage origin of these packages.
* Without *jpp* in Fedora Release tags, it becomes very obvious whether
a package came from
Fedora repositories or JPackage repositories.

Hopefully, you will agree that this plugin obsoletes the need for the
JPackage naming exception in Fedora. I look forward to your feedback.

Thanks,

~spot

--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
 
Old 05-12-2008, 05:17 PM
Nicolas Mailhot
 
Default Summary of the 2008-04-08 Packaging Committee meeting

Le lundi 12 mai 2008 à 13:03 -0400, Tom "spot" Callaway a écrit :
> On Wed, 2008-05-07 at 14:29 -0400, Deepak Bhole wrote:
>
> > A page detailing the reasons for keeping the exception is now up on the
> > wiki:
> >
> > http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/DeepakBhole/ReasonsForKeepingJPP
>
> Deepak, thanks for writing that up. Seth Vidal has helped me come up
> with a technical solution that should meet the requirements described in
> your document.
>
> http://skvidal.fedorapeople.org/misc/exclude-by-group/
>
> This is a very simple yum plugin that enables the user to exclude by RPM
> Group tag.

Uh, that's pretty hideous, I thought we were working hard at killing the
group tag altogether, not adding new deps on it. Plus before it works it
would require a full rebuild of the java repository to put the right
group on every package.

Can't yum use the Vendor tag instead? That wouldn't be such a kludge,
and I think Vendor already identifies a unique repository provider in
existing packages.

--
Nicolas Mailhot
--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
 
Old 05-12-2008, 05:31 PM
seth vidal
 
Default Summary of the 2008-04-08 Packaging Committee meeting

On Mon, 2008-05-12 at 13:31 -0400, Tom "spot" Callaway wrote:
> On Mon, 2008-05-12 at 19:17 +0200, Nicolas Mailhot wrote:
> > Le lundi 12 mai 2008 à 13:03 -0400, Tom "spot" Callaway a écrit :
> > > On Wed, 2008-05-07 at 14:29 -0400, Deepak Bhole wrote:
> > >
> > > > A page detailing the reasons for keeping the exception is now up on the
> > > > wiki:
> > > >
> > > > http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/DeepakBhole/ReasonsForKeepingJPP
> > >
> > > Deepak, thanks for writing that up. Seth Vidal has helped me come up
> > > with a technical solution that should meet the requirements described in
> > > your document.
> > >
> > > http://skvidal.fedorapeople.org/misc/exclude-by-group/
> > >
> > > This is a very simple yum plugin that enables the user to exclude by RPM
> > > Group tag.
> >
> > Uh, that's pretty hideous, I thought we were working hard at killing the
> > group tag altogether, not adding new deps on it. Plus before it works it
> > would require a full rebuild of the java repository to put the right
> > group on every package.
>
> Yeah, but we'd want that rebuild anyways to drop the .jpp tag. I'm not
> convinced that this is any more "hideous" than the .jpp release naming
> exception (in fact, I think it is far nicer).
>
> > Can't yum use the Vendor tag instead? That wouldn't be such a kludge,
> > and I think Vendor already identifies a unique repository provider in
> > existing packages.
>
> Unfortunately, in Fedora packages, Vendor gets set to Fedora Project for
> everything, which wouldn't help in excluding the Java JPackage derived
> packages living in Fedora.
>

If it is helpful I can modify the plugin to do exclude-by-provides or
other such nonsense.

-sv


--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
 
Old 05-12-2008, 05:31 PM
"Tom "spot" Callaway"
 
Default Summary of the 2008-04-08 Packaging Committee meeting

On Mon, 2008-05-12 at 19:17 +0200, Nicolas Mailhot wrote:
> Le lundi 12 mai 2008 à 13:03 -0400, Tom "spot" Callaway a écrit :
> > On Wed, 2008-05-07 at 14:29 -0400, Deepak Bhole wrote:
> >
> > > A page detailing the reasons for keeping the exception is now up on the
> > > wiki:
> > >
> > > http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/DeepakBhole/ReasonsForKeepingJPP
> >
> > Deepak, thanks for writing that up. Seth Vidal has helped me come up
> > with a technical solution that should meet the requirements described in
> > your document.
> >
> > http://skvidal.fedorapeople.org/misc/exclude-by-group/
> >
> > This is a very simple yum plugin that enables the user to exclude by RPM
> > Group tag.
>
> Uh, that's pretty hideous, I thought we were working hard at killing the
> group tag altogether, not adding new deps on it. Plus before it works it
> would require a full rebuild of the java repository to put the right
> group on every package.

Yeah, but we'd want that rebuild anyways to drop the .jpp tag. I'm not
convinced that this is any more "hideous" than the .jpp release naming
exception (in fact, I think it is far nicer).

> Can't yum use the Vendor tag instead? That wouldn't be such a kludge,
> and I think Vendor already identifies a unique repository provider in
> existing packages.

Unfortunately, in Fedora packages, Vendor gets set to Fedora Project for
everything, which wouldn't help in excluding the Java JPackage derived
packages living in Fedora.

~spot

--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
 
Old 05-12-2008, 07:11 PM
Nicolas Mailhot
 
Default Summary of the 2008-04-08 Packaging Committee meeting

Le lundi 12 mai 2008 Ã* 13:31 -0400, Tom "spot" Callaway a écrit :
> On Mon, 2008-05-12 at 19:17 +0200, Nicolas Mailhot wrote:
> > Le lundi 12 mai 2008 Ã* 13:03 -0400, Tom "spot" Callaway a écrit :
> > > On Wed, 2008-05-07 at 14:29 -0400, Deepak Bhole wrote:
> > >
> > > > A page detailing the reasons for keeping the exception is now up on the
> > > > wiki:
> > > >
> > > > http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/DeepakBhole/ReasonsForKeepingJPP
> > >
> > > Deepak, thanks for writing that up. Seth Vidal has helped me come up
> > > with a technical solution that should meet the requirements described in
> > > your document.
> > >
> > > http://skvidal.fedorapeople.org/misc/exclude-by-group/
> > >
> > > This is a very simple yum plugin that enables the user to exclude by RPM
> > > Group tag.
> >
> > Uh, that's pretty hideous, I thought we were working hard at killing the
> > group tag altogether, not adding new deps on it. Plus before it works it
> > would require a full rebuild of the java repository to put the right
> > group on every package.
>
> Yeah, but we'd want that rebuild anyways to drop the .jpp tag.

The fedora rebuilds won't change the group tag of the existing jpackage
rpms. And there's a lot more of those (with a lot less human and
non-human resources) JPackage-side.

> I'm not
> convinced that this is any more "hideous" than the .jpp release naming
> exception (in fact, I think it is far nicer).

Just shows you're hopelessly biased. The only value of this proposal is
to kill the .foo tag (others have been using with no harm done), by
replacing it with a kludge (which only merit is it's so convoluted and
backwards it won't probably survive a month after its announce). Seth
delivered but I'm not sure the requirement level was to his usual
standard.

> > Can't yum use the Vendor tag instead? That wouldn't be such a kludge,
> > and I think Vendor already identifies a unique repository provider in
> > existing packages.
>
> Unfortunately, in Fedora packages, Vendor gets set to Fedora Project for
> everything,

In other words, expediency prevailed over solid long-term design.

> which wouldn't help in excluding the Java JPackage derived
> packages living in Fedora.

I'm disappointed by the way this problem was handled. I'd like the
people who were so quick to repeatedly diss the Java people in public,
and who are asking of them a lot of work, to do them the courtesy of
applying the same high standards to themselves, that is to say:
– reach out to their communication forums (why should the effort
always be one-way)
— document properly in the wiki what are the exact drawbacks of
using .jpp (it's *still* nebulous to me at least)
– propose a solid long-term technical solution (pot, kettle, black, all
this public outrage to propose a kludgy kludge as 'solution')

We're not so quick to mandate mass rebuilds when we have to do them
ourselves.

--
Nicolas Mailhot
--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
 
Old 05-12-2008, 07:15 PM
Nicolas Mailhot
 
Default Summary of the 2008-04-08 Packaging Committee meeting

Le lundi 12 mai 2008 à 13:31 -0400, seth vidal a écrit :

> If it is helpful I can modify the plugin to do exclude-by-provides or
> other such nonsense.

Can you propose a sensical way to do it instead? People may spend months
of packaging rebuilds as a result of all this. They deserve a solid
solution.

--
Nicolas Mailhot
--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
 
Old 05-12-2008, 07:17 PM
"Tom "spot" Callaway"
 
Default Summary of the 2008-04-08 Packaging Committee meeting

On Mon, 2008-05-12 at 21:15 +0200, Nicolas Mailhot wrote:
> People may spend months of packaging rebuilds as a result of all this.

It won't take months. A week, maybe. And yes, I'm volunteering to
actually do the work here.

~spot

--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
 
Old 05-12-2008, 07:41 PM
seth vidal
 
Default Summary of the 2008-04-08 Packaging Committee meeting

On Mon, 2008-05-12 at 21:15 +0200, Nicolas Mailhot wrote:
> Le lundi 12 mai 2008 à 13:31 -0400, seth vidal a écrit :
>
> > If it is helpful I can modify the plugin to do exclude-by-provides or
> > other such nonsense.
>
> Can you propose a sensical way to do it instead? People may spend months
> of packaging rebuilds as a result of all this. They deserve a solid
> solution.
>

Well, I think the whole 'exclude this set of pkgs b/c they're
kinda-sorta-this-groups' thing to be pretty nonsensical. Spot asked me
for a way to solve the requested need for the users which is what
exclude-by-rpm-group or exclude-by-vendor or exclude-by-provides or
exclude-by-other-arbitrary-tag is about.

But I don't have a dog in this fight. If you don't like the plugin,
that's fine, propose another solution and I'll see what I can do.

-sv


--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
 

Thread Tools




All times are GMT. The time now is 02:07 PM.

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