Packaging:Minutes20080520

Fedora Packaging Committee Meeting of {2008-05-20}

Present

• DenisLeroy (delero)
• DominikMierzejewski (Rathann)
• JasonTibbitts (tibbs)
• RalfCorsepius (racor)
• RexDieter (rdieter)
• TomCallaway (spot)
• ToshioKuratomi (abadger1999)

Writeups

The following drafts have been accepted by FESCO and are to be written into the guidelines:

• Recording the upstream status of patches

http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackagingDrafts/PatchUpstreamStatus

• Mandatory verification of desktop files

http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackagingDrafts/DesktopVerify

Votes

The following proposals were considered:

• Withdrawing the JPackage naming exception
• The current exception allowing "jpp" in release strings is at http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/JPackagePolicy
• Accepted (7 - 0)
• Voting for: spot delero Rathann abadger1999 rdieter racor tibbs (all committee members present voted for)

Other Discussions

• A draft is being worked up regarding the use of alternatives.

If you are experienced with the use of alternatives and would like to give input on the issues surrounding alternatives and packaging, please join us on the fedora-packaging mailing list.

IRC Logs

* spot is here, one sec		12:01
spot	aaanyways.	12:02
spot	who else is around for FPC	12:02
* delero here		12:03
* tibbs here		12:03
rdieter	here	12:05
racor	here	12:05
spot	abadger1999, racor?	12:05
* spot looks for the others		12:06
abadger1999	here	12:06
spot	Rathann said he was going to miss it	12:06
spot	i don't know where Xavier or Hans are.	12:07
spot	ok, first item on the agenda	12:07
spot	(get your fire proof vest on...)	12:07
spot	Removing the JPackage naming exception.	12:07
* dbhole_ tests his flamethrower		12:08
spot	I posit that three viable alternatives to using the "jpp" repotag in Fedora packages have been identified.	12:08
spot	1. A yum group exclude plugin	12:08
spot	2. The yum-priorities plugin	12:08
spot	3. Provides, as documented by f13 on the Jpackage mailing list	12:08
spot	Thus, the terms of the exception have been met. There exist functional workarounds for the technical issues that merited the exception.	12:09
spot	I propose that we vote to lift the exception.	12:09
tibbs	So, I've a question.	12:09
overholt	I think you're causing work for JPackage (unnecessarily IMO) with this	12:10
dbhole_	#1 cannot be used because it will require jpackage to change their packages as well, to set the same group	12:10
overholt	and it doesn't help with the perception that Fedora has no concern for stuff outside Fedora	12:10
tibbs	Were the requirements in the document we were given the only requirements?	12:10
spot	dbhole_: and yet, #1 is what was asked for.	12:10
--> Rathann has joined this channel (n=rathann@235-goc-28.acn.waw.pl).		12:10
overholt	it makes us all look like self-centred jerks	12:10
Rathann	o/ present	12:10
tibbs	It sounds like there are other requirement we weren't told about.	12:11
Rathann	sorry for being late	12:11
racor	AFAIU, neither #1 nor #2 work on the rpm-level => these are non-options, IMO	12:11
overholt	tibbs, well, there was the months-long thread about it back in the day	12:11
spot	this is an issue of ensuring clean rpm ordering in Fedora.	12:11
delero	racor: why is a yum-level solution not good enough ?	12:11
dbhole_	spot: Not it was not. What was asked for was something we can do, and only WE have to do, that allow us to meet all the requirements that caused the exception in the first place. It is hardly right to be telling jpackage to alter 500+ packages because *we* want it	12:11
overholt	clean rpm ordering was ensured with the scheme, was it not?	12:11
racor	rpm -U / -i MUST work	12:11
spot	dbhole_: again, no one is asking Jpackage to do anything.	12:11
tibbs	I could care less about that. We asked for the full list of requirements, we got a list, and now it seems that we can't make a decision based on that list.	12:11
spot	I feel that we've met the terms of the exception to our naming guidelines	12:12
spot	possibly even gone above and beyond what is required.	12:12
abadger1999	dbhole_: If JPackage has to change their groups, then the list of technical requirements we were given is not complete.	12:12
overholt	or the solution didn't take them into account	12:13
overholt	hence my earlier point	12:13
spot	this is no different from importing packages from any other repo which conflict with the Fedora Guidelines	12:13
spot	the naming guidelines exist for a specific reason, to ensure clean rpm transactions with n-v-r ordering	12:13
overholt	which you fixed with the scheme	12:14
overholt	*you* came up with	12:14
spot	overholt: as a temporary workaround	12:14
spot	it was always intended to be temporary until better workarounds were found	12:14
overholt	spot, fine, but your new 'solution' screws people over outside of Fedora	12:14
spot	better workarounds have been found	12:14
tibbs	Honestly, is Fedora allowed to choose its own packaging rules?	12:14
overholt	better in some people's eyes	12:14
rdieter	"... to ensure clean rpm transactions" what if that's not valid?	12:14
spot	overholt: it doesn't screw anyone to remove three characters.	12:15
overholt	I really don't care about "jpp" itself	12:15
abadger1999	overholt: Tell us what the new requirement is that screws people over.	12:15
overholt	I'm mostly annoyed with the way this has been rammed through	12:15
rdieter	rpmdev-vercmp 0 1 2 0 1 2jpp says: 0:1-2jpp is newer , isn't that what we want?	12:15
dbhole_	spot: And how is #1 supposed to address pre existing packages? If I installed the java stack on my system at install time and wish to move away later, it would not work (atleast I don't see how it could)	12:15
abadger1999	If we don't know the requirements we can't address them.	12:15
spot	rammed? this has been a YEAR in coming.	12:15
overholt	abadger1999, Jpackage has no time to react and implement this	12:15
tibbs	What the hell? "Rammed"?}	12:15
overholt	it has felt very much like a personal vendetta the whole time	12:15
abadger1999	overholt: As far as I can see they don't have to implement anything.	12:15
* spot sighs		12:15
abadger1999	overholt: That's the problem.	12:15
spot	this is not a vendetta. let that go on the record.	12:15
overholt	abadger1999, I read their mails as they do	12:15
abadger1999	overholt: Tell us what the requirement is that they feel they have to implement for.	12:15
spot	this is just about Fedora being internally consistent.	12:15
overholt	I didn't say it was a vendetta	12:15
overholt	I said it felt like a vendetta	12:16
overholt	and if *feels* like we're unnecessarily forcing stuff on others	12:16
overholt	it just feels wrong	12:16
overholt	yes, cleanliness is nice	12:16
overholt	and consistency	12:16
spot	overholt: your feelings are noted.	12:16
overholt	and necesssary, even	12:16
tibbs	What stuff are we forcing on others?	12:16
tibbs	Honestly, I don't see it.	12:16
abadger1999	tibbs: +1.	12:16
overholt	we're making it so that JPackage developers can't use Fedoora, aren't we?	12:16
spot	overholt: not at all.	12:16
rdieter	no	12:16
abadger1999	overholt: Not that I can see....	12:16
overholt	then I guess I read the thread wrong	12:16
overholt	sorry	12:17
abadger1999	And that's what you have to explain to us.	12:17
tibbs	What, we have a user list and prevent them from logging in or something?	12:17
overholt	haha	12:17
abadger1999	If you can explain that then we'll know what's wrong with the change.	12:17
* overholt notes that he's not a JPackage developer		12:17
spot	the only thing we're doing is not permitting Fedora packages to use "jpp" in their Release.	12:17
abadger1999	If you can't then we'll vote on this.	12:17
spot	that is it. 100%.	12:17
overholt	I must have mis-interpreted the thread	12:17
overholt	carry on	12:17
spot	FPC members, are you ready to vote on this?	12:18
<-- overholt has left this channel ("Leaving").		12:18
dbhole_	spot: of the options 1,2,3, 1 and 2 cannot deal with pre existing packages, so they are out	12:18
abadger1999	I hate voting thinking that I'm missing something	12:18
dbhole_	spot: And 3 is very much a hack	12:19
abadger1999	but if no one explains the problem they think exists I think we have to.	12:19
dbhole_	I would like to solve this _properly_ by allowing a decent grouping system in rpm	12:19
spot	+1 to removing the exception.	12:19
dbhole_	that is what was agreed on with the exception	12:19
--> fitzsim has joined this channel (n=fitzsim@209.167.232.100).		12:19
dbhole_	that it will be removed when a solution is available	12:19
dbhole_	imo a hack is not a solution	12:19
delero	+1 to removing the exception also	12:19
dbhole_	and I partially agree with what overholt said.. this is being rammed through for no reason	12:20
dbhole_	no new technical reason has come up that necessites this, outside of some specific individuals wanting it removed	12:20
spot	dbhole_: believe me when i say that i cannot ram anything through both FPC and FESCo.	12:20
tibbs	"no reason"?	12:20
abadger1999	dbhole_: 1) Define pre-existing package	12:20
abadger1999	In JPackage or in Fedora	12:20
tibbs	Why is it that the reasons we have stated amount to "no reason"?	12:21
dbhole_	abadger1999: During installed, if the java stack is installed on the machine, the yum exclusion plugins will not be able to allow grouping of the "java packages"	12:21
abadger1999	dbhole_: So what is a pre-existing package?	12:21
dbhole_	tibbs: sorry, I should perhaps clarify. I understand that Fedora wants all packages to conform to a specific guideline. What I meant was that no new technical reason has come up since the exclusion was agreed upon	12:22
tibbs	The exception was always intended to be temporary.	12:22
abadger1999	dbhole_: The exclusion was forced upon us with the explicit statement that it is temporary until another method of doing it was found.	12:23
Rathann	dbhole_: but the exclusion had a timeout, had it not?	12:23
dbhole_	abadger1999: Well, say I am installing fedora, I select all packages to be installed, which includes a package, say "xalan-j2" which is a fedora/jpackage common package. The yum exclusion plugins proposed will not be able to mitigate this, as they can only exclude packages when new ones are being installed	12:23
Rathann	dbhole_: so what's the problem in your case?	12:23
delero	dbhole_: a repo priority plugin would solve this though woudln't it ?	12:24
tibbs	I don't understand why you'd even install something that you don't want to be installed.	12:24
dbhole_	Rathann: No, the excludes page states that it will be revisited when a proper solution is found. I don't think one has been. We are using (proposing) workarounds and hacks .. which would be fine if there was a new, technical reason to remove "jpp". But there is no new, technical reason to remove it that I can see	12:24
Rathann	dbhole_: IMHO there was never a good reason to have it there	12:25
spot	I think there are two flaws in how we originally handled the exception. We did not put a time limit on it, nor did we define clearly who would be able to define a proper solution.	12:25
abadger1999	dbhole_: The use of the "jpp" tag is temporary. Once there is no longer a technical need as defined in this document, it will be removed from all Fedora packages.	12:25
tibbs	I get the impression that if we accept this line of reasoning we'll simply never be "allowed" to decide on our own internally consistent packaging guidelines.	12:25
dbhole_	tibbs: You are right, in most cases it would. What I am saying is that it limits options. If one were to install a java package at install time (for whatever reason), they are basically stuck	12:25
spot	tibbs: i agree.	12:25
delero	dbhole_: i don't agree there for solution 2	12:26
spot	vote stands at +2 (+3 with Rathann's mail in vote)	12:26
dbhole_	tibbs: not true. If rpm query options properly support grouping, the exception can be removed , and it would be the right solution	12:26
Rathann	spot: I still vote +1 :)	12:26
abadger1999	vote to remove +1	12:26
rdieter	+1 to removing the exception	12:26
tibbs	dbhole_: You say they're "basically stuck" but I really don't see how jpp in the name actually gets you unstuck.	12:27
racor	+1 to removing the exception	12:27
spot	tibbs, racor, we're at +5, but I would like your vote on the record, so no one accuses me of shenanigans.	12:27
tibbs	I mean, you uninstall the package.	12:27
tibbs	I really wanted to see some kind of agreement.	12:27
dbhole_	tibbs: how is one supposed to know that is a jpp package, though?	12:27
--> couf has joined this channel (n=bart@fedora/couf).		12:27
dbhole_	tibbs: currently, the release string is the only one that signifies the origin	12:28
spot	dbhole_: its worth noting that it is a Fedora package.	12:28
dbhole_	spot: We need interoperability with jpp. and the goodwill of that community. We simply don't have enough java packagers. I own 61, and with 30 new coming my way	12:28
spot	tibbs: would you like to vote?	12:28
dbhole_	91 packages with 0 time alloted	12:29
--> overholt has joined this channel (n=overholt@209.167.232.100).		12:29
tibbs	I just haven't seen anything which would convince me to vote any other way than to remove the naming exception.	12:29
tibbs	I mean, if it all comes down to knowing which packages you need to uninstall when you want to replace a bunch of packages in the distro with other packages, then it seems pretty obvious.	12:30
abadger1999	dbhole_: You need to tell us why we're sacrificing goodwill by making changes to the _Fedora_Packages_.	12:30
overholt	I'd like to apologize for my comments earlier if they were rude or inappropriate. I only meant to give my impression of things and not state fact. FWIW, I think you all do a great job and this was a tough situation. I apologize again.	12:30
spot	overholt: no worries. this is an emotionally charged issue.	12:30
tibbs	I really don't understand why the solution isn't "see which packages are in the jpackage repo, uninstall all of them".	12:30
* spot isn't entirely sure why... but still.		12:30
overholt	spot, agreed (on both counts)	12:30
dbhole_	abadger1999: There is no easy way to switch stacks. The current one works, and I am afraid that the new ones will not work as well under all circumstances that the current one works under	12:30
abadger1999	overholt: No problem. We're in a tough spot as people are yelling at us but none of the yelling has seemed to have a technical basis yet.	12:31
tibbs	Anyway, I'll vote +1 for removing the exception.	12:31
overholt	abadger1999, yeah, it's hard.	12:31
* rdieter thinks f13's proposed solution has the most promise.		12:31
spot	ok, all votes are on the record. We'll pass this hot potato to FESCo for ratification.	12:31
delero	i prefer a solution at the yum-level personally	12:31
* abadger1999 likes repo priorities.		12:31
delero	since this is fundemantally a repo management issue	12:32
Rathann	exactly so	12:32
spot	believe it or not, this is the only item on today's agenda.	12:32
spot	the floor is now open for any other issues that are not the jpp naming exception.	12:32
abadger1999	dbhole_: The current one does not work. I pointed that out in one of my emails but no one addressed it.	12:32
dbhole_	abadger1999: What cases does it fail under? (sorry, I must have missed it.. that thread is rather long :/)	12:33
* Rathann would like to excuse himself and tend to other pressing issues		12:33
* overholt leaves with a red face and his tail between his legs for being a jerk. sorry for being so hot-headed.		12:33
<-- overholt has left this channel ("Leaving").		12:33
Rathann	thanks and bye	12:34
<-- Rathann has left this channel ("Leaving.").		12:34
tibbs	Actually, I really don't get how having jpp in all of the release strings actually helps you at all. If the fedora packages had "notjpp" in them then you'd actually be able to tell the java packages you have installed that didn't come from jpp.	12:34
tibbs	Fortunately nobody's proposed that.	12:34
dbhole_	tibbs: because the current way worked until now, there was never a need	12:35
dbhole_	and it still works	12:35
tibbs	For some definition of "works" which has yet to be explained by anyone in a way that allows me to understand it.	12:35
spot	ok, i'm not hearing any other topics.	12:36
abadger1999	I want to replace all Fedora java packages on my system with JPackage. I can't tell which packages are from Fedora and which are from JPackage because they both have *jpp* in the release tag.	12:36
tibbs	spot: Well, the alternatives thing was interesting.	12:36
tibbs	I don't really know what the proper answer is there.	12:36
spot	tibbs: indeed, but the draft is not ready for that yet.	12:36
spot	Rathann is working on a draft	12:36
delero	is there a tool that manages the alternatives sym links ?	12:36
delero	i.e. is the /etc/alternative symlink only set by rpm ?	12:36
spot	delero: alternatives does it for you.	12:37
delero	spot: ah ok thx	12:37
spot	/usr/sbin/alternatives	12:37
rdieter	man alternatives	12:37
dbhole_	abadger1999: right, but you can remove *jpp* easily enough, and then yum install from a specific repo, with an excludes *jpp* in the yum conf for the other repo	12:37
* delero wonders about /etc/alternatives/gcc		12:37
spot	delero: eeeek.	12:37
racor	delero: whatfor?	12:37
delero	we have 3 packages trying to override that right now	12:37
delero	distcc, cccache and icecream	12:38
dbhole_	spot: so which of the 3 solutions will be proposed to address the issue?	12:38
spot	dbhole_: honestly, thats up to the Fedora Java packagers.	12:39
tibbs	Jeez, just query the "specific repo", remove any packages from the system that exist there, and then install the ones you want.	12:39
tibbs	Sure, you remove too much, but removing anything with jpp in the name does the same thing.	12:39
tibbs	Was this whole thing really over something so amazingly trivial?	12:40
abadger1999	dbhole_: So... that doesn't change and, in fact becomes less hacky. Remove all java packages and then yum install with specific repo tagged with repo priorities.	12:40
rdieter	tibbs: +1, and a miracle the exemption lasted this long	12:41
dbhole_	tibbs: hmm, of all the things.. I cannot believe your solution was not proposed on that huge thread :/	12:42
tibbs	Now, I can't promise that the tools make it quite that easy, but if not then they can be trivially made to do so.	12:43
abadger1999	Re: alternatives. If multiple packages %ghost the symlinks will they be removed when one of the packages is removed?	12:44
tibbs	Don't you have to call alternatives in %postun in that case?	12:44
abadger1999	It seems like it shouldn't but I don't know if %ghosts are special.	12:44
tibbs	Admittedly I know little about how users and packagers are actually supposed to call alternatives.	12:45
* abadger1999 is of the opinion that alternatives should be used rarely as well.		12:45
spot	alternatives hurts my brain pretty thoroughly	12:46
tibbs	Rarely, sure, but you can't really escape it entirely.	12:46
tibbs	There's no good way for distcc to replace gcc otherwise.	12:46
tibbs	Well, $PATH, I guess.	12:46
spot	tibbs: did FESCo ratify the two issues from last meeting?	12:46
spot	i seem to recall they did, but i wanted to be sure.	12:46
tibbs	Yes, as far as I can remember.	12:46
tibbs	I would have sent any comments back to FPC.	12:47
spot	mmkay.	12:47
abadger1999	Unless we say that distcc shouldn't be replacing gcc... Not sure if that's something we want to get into, though.	12:47
tibbs	Well, we might consider getting into it one day, I guess.	12:47
abadger1999	Okay, well, I've got nothing else for this week.	12:50
delero	we can continue the alternatives discussino on the mailing list	12:51
spot	thanks guys, meeting done.	12:52
spot	i'm going to go stop drop and roll for a while	12:52
<-- delero has left this channel.		12:54
rdieter	[12:44] <abadger1999> Re: alternatives. If multiple packages %ghost the symlinks will they be removed when one of the packages is removed? : answer: no, only when all owners are removed (just like any other multiply-owned file or directory)	12:57
abadger1999	rdieter: Thanks!	12:57
(later)
f13	dbhole_: you still around?	14:04
f13	dbhole_: tibbs: that solution you proposed I thought was deemed unacceptable because it didn't work at the rpm level, only at the yum level.	14:04
tibbs	The one I talked about doesn't have much to do with yum.	14:05
tibbs	Obviously you have to have a source of rpms; from that you can make a list of the packages that might be on your system you need to remove.	14:06
f13	<tibbs> Jeez, just query the "specific repo", remove any packages from the system that exist there, and then install the ones you want.	14:06
tibbs	"query" could be ls|sed	14:06
f13	ok, that 'query the specific repo' smacks of yum to me. That's why I avoided anything of that nature in my proposals.	14:06
f13	I was under the assumption that a hard requirement had to be that you could do this at the rpm level disconnected from the network	14:06
tibbs	Besides, "specific repo" wasn't my wording; that's why I quoted it.	14:06
f13	nod	14:06
f13	I'll note that there still have been no relevant replies to my Provides: proposal on the jpackage discuss list :(	14:13

Generated by irclog2html.py 2.6 by Marius Gedminas - find it at mg.pov.lt!