Stewardship SIG: Initial report and plans for the future

[Fabio Valentini]

Hi everybody,

It looks like the first round of orphans has been taken in by our SIG - this
seemed to be a good time to do inventory and think about how to proceed.


Status Report
-------------

First of all, I've written a small script [0] that produces a simple HTML page
of the current status of the stewardship-SIG packager group. Pull Requests to
improve the report are welcome.

The current status is available at [1]. I will try to update that page
regularly.


Dependency Checks
-----------------

Also, I've tried to run some repoqueries to determine which of our packages are
leaf packages that could be retired eventually. However, running repoqueries on
f29 against the rawhide repos crashed dnf for some reason ... so I can't
automate that easily, yet.

I've tried coming up with a repoquery call that lists all packages that
(Build)Require some given argument package, which we could then use to prune the
list of packages maintained by this SIG. Can somebody please sanity-check what I
did here [2] and here [3]? It would be good if we had a "correct" version of
those dependency checks. PRs to fix/improve those scripts are very welcome.


Pagure Project
--------------

Since I'm already talking about Pull Requests, I've created a pagure project [4]
for our group, where we can have a ticketing system (for example, where change
of ownership for packages or retirement of leaf packages can be tracked), and
a collection of shared scripts and tools which can automate some of our
recurring tasks. The three scripts I mentioned will be moved there, as well.


That's all for now.

Fabio


[0]: https://github.com/decathorpe/miscripts/blob/master/stewardship-sig-repor...
[1]: https://decathorpe.fedorapeople.org/stewardship-sig.html
[2]: https://github.com/decathorpe/miscripts/blob/master/whatrequires.sh
[3]: https://github.com/decathorpe/miscripts/blob/master/whatbuildrequires.sh
[4]: https://www.pagure.io/stewardship-sig

[stewardship-sig] Stewardship SIG: Initial report and plans for the future

[Miro Hrončok]

On 29. 03. 19 22:25, Fabio Valentini wrote:
>  Hi everybody,
>  
>  It looks like the first round of orphans has been taken in by our SIG - this
>  seemed to be a good time to do inventory and think about how to proceed. 
Still missing:

stewardship-sig: apache-logging-parent, woodstox-core, apache-commons-csv, 
log4j, tagsoup, jeromq, maven-file-management

I've requested tagsoup in https://pagure.io/releng/issue/8251

>  Status Report
>  -------------
>  
>  First of all, I've written a small script [0] that produces a simple HTML page
>  of the current status of the stewardship-SIG packager group. Pull Requests to
>  improve the report are welcome.
>  
>  The current status is available at [1]. I will try to update that page
>  regularly. 
Nice!

>  Dependency Checks
>  -----------------
>  
>  Also, I've tried to run some repoqueries to determine which of our packages are
>  leaf packages that could be retired eventually. However, running repoqueries on
>  f29 against the rawhide repos crashed dnf for some reason ... so I can't
>  automate that easily, yet.
>  
>  I've tried coming up with a repoquery call that lists all packages that
>  (Build)Require some given argument package, which we could then use to prune the
>  list of packages maintained by this SIG. Can somebody please sanity-check what I
>  did here [2] and here [3]? It would be good if we had a "correct" version of
>  those dependency checks. PRs to fix/improve those scripts are very welcome. 
I always go with (only use one repo if you want only that kind of info:

  $ dnf repoquery --repo=rawhide --repo=rawhide-source --whatrequires xxx

Alternatively, this gives source packages that require on runtime:

  $ dnf repoquery --repo=rawhide --source --whatrequires xxx

(You need fedora-repos-rawhide installed.)

>  Pagure Project
>  --------------
>  
>  Since I'm already talking about Pull Requests, I've created a pagure project [4]
>  for our group, where we can have a ticketing system (for example, where change
>  of ownership for packages or retirement of leaf packages can be tracked), and
>  a collection of shared scripts and tools which can automate some of our
>  recurring tasks. The three scripts I mentioned will be moved there, as well. 
First ticket: https://www.pagure.io/stewardship-sig/issue/1

>  [0]:
> https://github.com/decathorpe/miscripts/blob/master/stewardship-sig-repor...
>  [1]: https://decathorpe.fedorapeople.org/stewardship-sig.html
>  [2]: https://github.com/decathorpe/miscripts/blob/master/whatrequires.sh
>  [3]: https://github.com/decathorpe/miscripts/blob/master/whatbuildrequires.sh
>  [4]: https://www.pagure.io/stewardship-sig 
-- 
Miro Hrončok
--
Phone: [phone]
IRC: mhroncok

[stewardship-sig] Stewardship SIG: Initial report and plans for the future

[Vít Ondruch]

Dne 30. 03. 19 v 10:53 Miro Hrončok napsal(a):
>  On 29. 03. 19 22:25, Fabio Valentini wrote:
>
> > Dependency Checks
> > -----------------
> >
> > Also, I've tried to run some repoqueries to determine which of our
> > packages are
> > leaf packages that could be retired eventually. However, running
> > repoqueries on
> > f29 against the rawhide repos crashed dnf for some reason ... so I can't
> > automate that easily, yet.
> >
> > I've tried coming up with a repoquery call that lists all packages that
> > (Build)Require some given argument package, which we could then use
> > to prune the
> > list of packages maintained by this SIG. Can somebody please
> > sanity-check what I
> > did here [2] and here [3]? It would be good if we had a "correct"
> > version of
> > those dependency checks. PRs to fix/improve those scripts are very
> > welcome.
>
>  I always go with (only use one repo if you want only that kind of info:
>
>   $ dnf repoquery --repo=rawhide --repo=rawhide-source --whatrequires xxx
>
>  Alternatively, this gives source packages that require on runtime:
>
>   $ dnf repoquery --repo=rawhide --source --whatrequires xxx
>
>  (You need fedora-repos-rawhide installed.) 

May be you should consider replacing --whatrequires by --whatdepends to
support weak dependencies ...



Vít

[stewardship-sig] Stewardship SIG: Initial report and plans for the future

[Fabio Valentini]

On Mon, Apr 1, 2019, 10:55 Vít Ondruch <vondruch(a)redhat.com&gt; wrote:

>  Dne 30. 03. 19 v 10:53 Miro Hrončok napsal(a):
>  > On 29. 03. 19 22:25, Fabio Valentini wrote:
>  >
>  >> Dependency Checks
>  >> -----------------
>  >>
>  >> Also, I've tried to run some repoqueries to determine which of our
>  >> packages are
>  >> leaf packages that could be retired eventually. However, running
>  >> repoqueries on
>  >> f29 against the rawhide repos crashed dnf for some reason ... so I can't
>  >> automate that easily, yet.
>  >>
>  >> I've tried coming up with a repoquery call that lists all packages that
>  >> (Build)Require some given argument package, which we could then use
>  >> to prune the
>  >> list of packages maintained by this SIG. Can somebody please
>  >> sanity-check what I
>  >> did here [2] and here [3]? It would be good if we had a "correct"
>  >> version of
>  >> those dependency checks. PRs to fix/improve those scripts are very
>  >> welcome.
>  >
>  > I always go with (only use one repo if you want only that kind of info:
>  >
>  >  $ dnf repoquery --repo=rawhide --repo=rawhide-source --whatrequires xxx
>  >
>  > Alternatively, this gives source packages that require on runtime:
>  >
>  >  $ dnf repoquery --repo=rawhide --source --whatrequires xxx
>  >
>  > (You need fedora-repos-rawhide installed.)
>
>
>  May be you should consider replacing --whatrequires by --whatdepends to
>  support weak dependencies ...
>  
For the actual script that generates the report, I added additional checks
for --whatrecommends and --whatsuggests, too. So weak dependencies are
covered (although there aren't any, from what I can tell).

https://www.pagure.io/stewardship-sig/blob/master/f/scripts/generate-repo...

Fabio


>  Vít
>  _______________________________________________
>  devel mailing list -- devel(a)lists.fedoraproject.org
>  To unsubscribe send an email to devel-leave(a)lists.fedoraproject.org
>  Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html
>  List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
>  List Archives:
>  https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/[e-mail]
>

[stewardship-sig] Stewardship SIG: Initial report and plans for the future

[Miro Hrončok]

On 01. 04. 19 10:55, Vít Ondruch wrote:
>  
>  Dne 30. 03. 19 v 10:53 Miro Hrončok napsal(a):
> > On 29. 03. 19 22:25, Fabio Valentini wrote:
> >
> >> Dependency Checks
> >> -----------------
> >>
> >> Also, I've tried to run some repoqueries to determine which of our
> >> packages are
> >> leaf packages that could be retired eventually. However, running
> >> repoqueries on
> >> f29 against the rawhide repos crashed dnf for some reason ... so I can't
> >> automate that easily, yet.
> >>
> >> I've tried coming up with a repoquery call that lists all packages that
> >> (Build)Require some given argument package, which we could then use
> >> to prune the
> >> list of packages maintained by this SIG. Can somebody please
> >> sanity-check what I
> >> did here [2] and here [3]? It would be good if we had a "correct"
> >> version of
> >> those dependency checks. PRs to fix/improve those scripts are very
> >> welcome.
> >
> > I always go with (only use one repo if you want only that kind of info:
> >
> >   $ dnf repoquery --repo=rawhide --repo=rawhide-source --whatrequires xxx
> >
> > Alternatively, this gives source packages that require on runtime:
> >
> >   $ dnf repoquery --repo=rawhide --source --whatrequires xxx
> >
> > (You need fedora-repos-rawhide installed.)
>  
>  
>  May be you should consider replacing --whatrequires by --whatdepends to
>  support weak dependencies ... 
Also, by definition, those are optional deps and hence I don't think this SIG 
should care much.

-- 
Miro Hrončok
--
Phone: [phone]
IRC: mhroncok

[Miro Hrončok]

>  Dependency Checks
>  -----------------
>  
>  Also, I've tried to run some repoqueries to determine which of our packages are
>  leaf packages that could be retired eventually. However, running repoqueries on
>  f29 against the rawhide repos crashed dnf for some reason ... so I can't
>  automate that easily, yet.
>  
>  I've tried coming up with a repoquery call that lists all packages that
>  (Build)Require some given argument package, which we could then use to prune the
>  list of packages maintained by this SIG. Can somebody please sanity-check what I
>  did here [2] and here [3]? It would be good if we had a "correct" version of
>  those dependency checks. PRs to fix/improve those scripts are very welcome. 
The report lists apache-rat as leaf. That is in fact a leaf built package, but 
the SRPM is not leaf, as apache-rat-plugin (a subpackage) is required.

I guess we need to check all subpackages to report something as leaf.
Also, some packages are not leafs, because they are only needed by siblings 
(subpackages of the same SRPM), but those should be reported as leaf SRPMs.


-- 
Miro Hrončok
--
Phone: [phone]
IRC: mhroncok

[Fabio Valentini]

On Mon, Apr 1, 2019 at 11:09 AM Miro Hrončok <mhroncok(a)redhat.com&gt; wrote:
>  > Dependency Checks
>  > -----------------
>  >
>  > Also, I've tried to run some repoqueries to determine which of our packages are
>  > leaf packages that could be retired eventually. However, running repoqueries on
>  > f29 against the rawhide repos crashed dnf for some reason ... so I can't
>  > automate that easily, yet.
>  >
>  > I've tried coming up with a repoquery call that lists all packages that
>  > (Build)Require some given argument package, which we could then use to prune the
>  > list of packages maintained by this SIG. Can somebody please sanity-check what I
>  > did here [2] and here [3]? It would be good if we had a "correct" version
> of
>  > those dependency checks. PRs to fix/improve those scripts are very welcome.
>
>  The report lists apache-rat as leaf. That is in fact a leaf built package, but
>  the SRPM is not leaf, as apache-rat-plugin (a subpackage) is required.
>
>  I guess we need to check all subpackages to report something as leaf.
>  Also, some packages are not leafs, because they are only needed by siblings
>  (subpackages of the same SRPM), but those should be reported as leaf SRPMs. 
FTR:
- I extended the leaf check for all built binary packages (it slightly
increases the run-time of the report generator script).
- I haven't implemented filtering out sibling-dependencies yet, though
- but it shouln't be too hard too add that in.
- The latest report at [0] already includes this change.

[0]: https://decathorpe.fedorapeople.org/stewardship-sig.html

Fabio

> --
> Miro Hrončok
> --
> Phone: [phone]
> IRC: mhroncok
> _______________________________________________
> devel mailing list -- devel(a)lists.fedoraproject.org
> To unsubscribe send an email to devel-leave(a)lists.fedoraproject.org
> Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html
> List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
> List Archives:
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/[e-mail]