On Sat, Dec 31, 2022 at 11:44 AM Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek
<zbyszek(a)in.waw.pl> wrote:
>
> On Sat, Dec 31, 2022 at 11:23:35AM -0500, Neal Gompa wrote:
> > On Sat, Dec 31, 2022 at 11:17 AM Miro Hrončok <mhroncok(a)redhat.com>
wrote:
> > >
> > > On 31. 12. 22 15:07, Josh Boyer wrote:
> > > > On Fri, Dec 30, 2022 at 5:17 PM Neal Gompa <ngompa13(a)gmail.com>
wrote:
> > > >>
> > > >> On Fri, Dec 30, 2022 at 4:48 PM Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek
> > > >> <zbyszek(a)in.waw.pl> wrote:
> > > >>>
> > > >>> On Fri, Dec 30, 2022 at 02:10:52PM -0500, Neal Gompa wrote:
> > > >>>> On Fri, Dec 30, 2022 at 2:02 PM Ben Cotton
<bcotton(a)redhat.com> wrote:
> > > >>>>>
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/Rpmautospec_by_Default
> > > >>>> Have we made sure that when Red Hat forks Fedora packages
for RHEL
> > > >>>> that they don't truncate or eliminate the Git history
anymore? Because I would
> > > >>>> personally be very displeased if my historical
attribution went away
> > > >>>> because of broken processes like the one used to fork all
the Fedora
> > > >>>> Linux 34 packages for CentOS Stream 9.
> > > >>>
> > > >>> I can't speak for the RH folks who do the forking…
It'd be great if
> > > >>> somebody who knows how that's done could answer.
> > > >>>
> > > >>> Fedora is already using rpmautospec widely enough that (if it
was to
> > > >>> be problem at all), it must already be a problem.
> > > >>>
> > > >>> At the level of specific solutions, obviously the obvious
answer is to
> > > >>> keep the git history. It's in general a great of source
of information
> > > >>> and discarding that is just an error. But if somebody were
really to do that,
> > > >>> it's fairly trivial to undo the conversion and get a
static changelog
> > > >>> again by inserting the output of 'rpmautospec
changelog' in the %changelog
> > > >>> section.
> > > >>>
> > > >>
> > > >> As they are the most prominent downstream we have, I would like
this
> > > >> resolved before changing Fedora's defaults.
> > > >>
> > > >> At the time we branched from Fedora Linux 34, there were very
few
> > > >> packages using rpmautospec and I don't think any that were
kept used
> > > >> rpmautospec. Now it is very obvious it would be a problem, so I
would
> > > >> like that fixed first. CentOS and RHEL infrastructure needs to
account
> > > >> for it properly and not gut the Git history.
> > > >
> > > > We can look into it, but at the moment this is unlikely to change on
> > > > the CentOS Stream/RHEL side.
> > >
> > > Are the packages imported on SRPM level with the changelogs rendered?
> > >
> >
> > They are not. It's done using distrobaker[1], which syncs Git content
> > and lookaside data.
> >
> > Example commit:
> >
https://gitlab.com/redhat/centos-stream/rpms/pipewire/-/commit/67142e715e...
> >
> > [1]:
https://github.com/fedora-eln/distrobaker
>
> I don't think that changes in Fedora should be held hostage by some downstream
> utils. We know that the problem is solvable and in fact not hard at all. We
> certainly can notify RHEL maintainers about this, which I did right now [1],
> but actual implementation is something that we have no control of from the
> Fedora side.
>
> [1]
https://github.com/fedora-eln/distrobaker/issues/12
>
I think it's absolutely reasonable to consider the effects of people
forking the packages in a way where attribution is lost. Losing
attribution and correct package history is just not acceptable to me.
In many respects, this is *extremely* personal to me, because all I
*have* is that attribution. I don't make any money on my work in
Fedora. Nobody pays me to do it. The absolute *least* anyone can do is
respect my copyright and preserve the attribution and history.
I am insulted that you think that's an issue that can be hand-waved
away. This is a hill I will die on.
Fix it. And that means fundamentally changing how distrobaker works.
Either preserve the whole Git history or always eliminate rpmautospec
and expand the changelog when importing into RHEL. The current
situation is simply not acceptable.
I fully support what you are saying. I do a lot of work in Fedora on my
free time too, and I would very much like for it to be attributed properly.
I also agree with the solutions you propose: I wrote the very same suggestions
in the issue I linked above. (I also think that the problem already exists,
*right now*, because rpmautospec is being used fairly widely, and if attributions
are stripped, this is not nice to those maintainers and also deprives downstream
users of useful information.)
I just don't think that we should ask Fedora contributors to make plans or
promises for a downstream distro. You are sending your complaints not to the
people who can fix the issue.
Zbyszek