/usrmove?

[Marcela Mašláňová]

None of your arguments explain the lack of communication. FESCo give you 
go even so late in development cycle, because you are well known in 
Fedora project. We believe that you can make it, because you told us at 
the start it's tested, it's working. If you said earlier changes in 
anaconda, rpm and other places are needed, it would be probably 
postponed into F-18. Such huge change should be discussed with release 
engineering at the start (in November), not in January.

I guess for future features will be a scope with all dependencies a must 
and a plan of such huge changes will be reviewed by FESCo more closely. 
Now I really hope that new feature process will be ready for next Fedora.

Marcela

On 02/10/2012 10:21 AM, Harald Hoyer wrote:
> Am 10.02.2012 08:36, schrieb Ondrej Vasik:
>> On Fri, 2012-02-10 at 05:45 +0100, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
>>> On 02/09/2012 11:06 PM, Jared K. Smith wrote:
>>>>> - management, whom seems to be driven by a "must have at any price, no point
>>>>> of return ever" policy.
>>>>
>>>> I'm not sure who you're referring to as "management" here
>>> Everybody involved to drawing strategic and tactical decisions related
>>> to the Fedora distribution.
>>>
>>> My point is, I feel there is a lack of "monitoring", "reporting", and a
>>> sense of "responsibility" of the different bodies involved and of people
>>> who are able to draw "unpleasant decisions".
>>>
>>> To draw an arbitrary example from recent past: Ask yourself - What was
>>> the shape of systemd in F15/F16? Has the situation been fixed in F17?
>>>
>>> Wrt. F17: usrmove - Independently from the fact that I consider it to be
>>> an "idotic foolishness", ask yourself if it is a shape to be part of
>>> F17? IMO, it's foreseeable it will not be ready, because there are too
>>> many unknows attached to it. I now would expect those people having been
>>> involved to stand up, show responsibility and revisit their decisions -
>>> This obiviously doesn't happen.
>>
>> One additional item to this topic.
>> I'm the Fedora filesystem package maintainer (and because it has it's
>> upstream on the fedorahosted, you can say upstream...) and I was aware
>> of the "usrmove" feature only from the discussions and feature pages.
>> For quite a long time I waited for an email from Harald - with some
>> "please include the changes into upstream git". The only mail I received
>> from him was the mail on 24th of January - saying - do not build the
>> package. Nothing more... Strange - when the first thing for Fedora
>> maintainers should be "upstream first" and imho violation of Proven
>
> It had to happen all at one time in koji.
>
>> packager rules in some cases . For me it was kind of misusing proven
>> packager - as e.g. in coreutils package he did following change:
>>
>> +%check
>> +# FIXME: check failed!!
>> +# make check
>> (part of
>> http://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/scm-commits/2012-January/725967.html ,
>> quite easy to miss when reading the commit mail)
>> without even informing me about that! I don't see disabling testsuite at
>> buildtime as the necessary minimal change. Not saying anything that with
>> the /bin/ provides the spec file looks really like a mess now.
>
> The testsuite was failing in rawhide at patch creation time (without any usrmove
> patches). Works now again. Just turned it on.
>
>>
>> Given the fact that there is NO ultimate gain from the usrmove feature
>> (ok, I understand all the arguments for the usrmove, but I don't see
>> them that bright at the moment as Harald and fastboot guys - e.g. the
>> compatibility of distro locations is not only in the locations of
>> binaries and we have much more differences in Fedora)
>
> That's your personal opinion.. I tend to differ. Please read
> http://www.freedesktop.org/wiki/Software/systemd/TheCaseForTheUsrMerge again.
>
>>
>> I really don't know why the REAL ACTIONS on this feature were started
>> that late in F17 release cycle - several months after branching.
>
> Because politics took so long.
>
>> Only 3
>> weeks after the start of usrmove git commits you now have even F18 git
>> branch and F18 would have been MUCH better for it.
>> In addition, for mock builds of F17+ packages with usrmove support on
>> RHEL-6 systems you now need UNSUPPORTED rpm from Harald pages
>> ( http://people.redhat.com/harald/downloads/rpm/4.8.0-19.el6.0.usrmove.1/ ).
>
> and? It will get in RHEL-6.3 ... SUPPORTED! That's a self inflicted wound,
> binding Fedora development to RHEL-6.
>
>>
>> I'm sure that reverting the changes at the moment would mean much more
>> confusion and that there is the only option now - finish it.
>> But I hope that FESCO will learn from this "feature" and will set the
>> "deadlines" for distro-wide features with higher impact sooner - so
>> there will be enough time to postpone them to Fedora X+1 in the case of
>> immaturity. I think there is a difference between usrmove and e.g.
>> GIMP2.8 feature (no offence to Gimp).
>>
>>
>> Greetings,
>>           Ondrej Vasik
>>
>


-- 
Marcela Mašláňová
BaseOS team Brno