Looking for a proven packager

[Mattias Ellert]

Hi!

I submitted a bugzilla report with a patch that implements an
improvement of the hadoop package in Fedora, extending the current
incomplete Fedora integration patch that only supports ix86 and x86_64
to more architectures. The maintainer is unwilling to apply it, but
says that if a proven packager would apply it he would be extatic.

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1328076

Since I am not a proven packager myself, I am looking for one that can
perform this task.

	Mattias

[Igor Gnatenko]

First thing you should do is to send your patch upstream. If upstream
will say "it's good patch", I will help you to get it in Fedora before
upstream will release new version. Unfortunately it's not possible in
other way.

Also there are some comments from random guys about code quality.

On Thu, Jun 30, 2016 at 10:14 AM, Mattias Ellert
<mattias.ellert(a)fysast.uu.se&gt; wrote:
>  Hi!
>
>  I submitted a bugzilla report with a patch that implements an
>  improvement of the hadoop package in Fedora, extending the current
>  incomplete Fedora integration patch that only supports ix86 and x86_64
>  to more architectures. The maintainer is unwilling to apply it, but
>  says that if a proven packager would apply it he would be extatic.
>
>  https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1328076
>
>  Since I am not a proven packager myself, I am looking for one that can
>  perform this task.
>
>          Mattias
>
>  --
>  devel mailing list
>  devel(a)lists.fedoraproject.org
>  https://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/[e-mail]
>  


-- 
-Igor Gnatenko

[Peter Robinson]

On Thu, Jun 30, 2016 at 9:30 AM, Igor Gnatenko <ignatenko(a)redhat.com&gt; wrote:
>  First thing you should do is to send your patch upstream. If
> upstream
>  will say "it's good patch", I will help you to get it in Fedora before
>  upstream will release new version. Unfortunately it's not possible in
>  other way. 
In the hadoop case it might not be valid to do that as the version in
Fedora is quite out of date compared to upstream.

> Also there are some comments from random guys about code quality.
>
> On Thu, Jun 30, 2016 at 10:14 AM, Mattias Ellert
> <mattias.ellert(a)fysast.uu.se&gt; wrote:
>> Hi!
>>
>> I submitted a bugzilla report with a patch that implements an
>> improvement of the hadoop package in Fedora, extending the current
>> incomplete Fedora integration patch that only supports ix86 and x86_64
>> to more architectures. The maintainer is unwilling to apply it, but
>> says that if a proven packager would apply it he would be extatic.
>>
>> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1328076
>>
>> Since I am not a proven packager myself, I am looking for one that can
>> perform this task.
>>
>>         Mattias
>>
>> --
>> devel mailing list
>> devel(a)lists.fedoraproject.org
>> https://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/[e-mail]
>>
>
>
>
> --
> -Igor Gnatenko
> --
> devel mailing list
> devel(a)lists.fedoraproject.org
> https://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/[e-mail]

[Christopher]

On Thu, Jun 30, 2016 at 4:35 AM Peter Robinson <pbrobinson(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote:

>  On Thu, Jun 30, 2016 at 9:30 AM, Igor Gnatenko
> <ignatenko(a)redhat.com&gt;
>  wrote:
>  > First thing you should do is to send your patch upstream. If upstream
>  > will say "it's good patch", I will help you to get it in Fedora
> before
>  > upstream will release new version. Unfortunately it's not possible in
>  > other way.
>
>  In the hadoop case it might not be valid to do that as the version in
>  Fedora is quite out of date compared to upstream.
>
>  
Fedora's version may be out of date, but I suspect that this particular
part of Hadoop's code is not fast moving, and would still be relevant to
even their latest versions. At the very least, it's worth an attempt to
contact them upstream first.

I do have an interest in updating Fedora's packaged version of Hadoop, and
if the patch is good, it'd be nice to have it in upstream so we don't have
to keep it around when we move to the newer version. So, even if they
aren't willing to support the patch for our version, if they're willing to
support it in any of their latest supported versions, I'd be fine keeping
the backported patch until we upgrade.

As I said in the BZ, I just don't have the expertise to evaluate the patch
myself to know if it's good or if it's going to cause problems. A +1 from
upstream, a proven packager, or the secondary arch team, would be
sufficient for me.

[Jonathan Wakely]

On 30/06/16 16:27 +0000, Christopher wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 30, 2016 at 4:35 AM Peter Robinson
> <pbrobinson(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote:
>
> > On Thu, Jun 30, 2016 at 9:30 AM, Igor Gnatenko <ignatenko(a)redhat.com&gt;
> > wrote:
> > > First thing you should do is to send your patch upstream. If upstream
> > > will say "it's good patch", I will help you to get it in Fedora
> before
> > > upstream will release new version. Unfortunately it's not possible in
> > > other way.
> >
> > In the hadoop case it might not be valid to do that as the version in
> > Fedora is quite out of date compared to upstream.
> >
> >
> Fedora's version may be out of date, but I suspect that this particular
> part of Hadoop's code is not fast moving, and would still be relevant to
> even their latest versions. At the very least, it's worth an attempt to
> contact them upstream first.
>
> I do have an interest in updating Fedora's packaged version of Hadoop, and
> if the patch is good, it'd be nice to have it in upstream so we don't have
> to keep it around when we move to the newer version. So, even if they
> aren't willing to support the patch for our version, if they're willing to
> support it in any of their latest supported versions, I'd be fine keeping
> the backported patch until we upgrade.
>
> As I said in the BZ, I just don't have the expertise to evaluate the patch
> myself to know if it's good or if it's going to cause problems. A +1 from
> upstream, a proven packager, or the secondary arch team, would be
> sufficient for me. 
A security expert and a proven packager have evaluated it, and pointed
out two bugs in the code.

That's minus two so far, how many do you need?

[Jonathan Wakely]

On 01/07/16 10:57 +0100, Jonathan Wakely wrote:
> On 30/06/16 16:27 +0000, Christopher wrote:
> >On Thu, Jun 30, 2016 at 4:35 AM Peter Robinson <pbrobinson(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote:
> >
> >>On Thu, Jun 30, 2016 at 9:30 AM, Igor Gnatenko <ignatenko(a)redhat.com&gt;
> >>wrote:
> >>> First thing you should do is to send your patch upstream. If upstream
> >>> will say "it's good patch", I will help you to get it in Fedora
> before
> >>> upstream will release new version. Unfortunately it's not possible in
> >>> other way.
> >>
> >>In the hadoop case it might not be valid to do that as the version in
> >>Fedora is quite out of date compared to upstream.
> >>
> >>
> >Fedora's version may be out of date, but I suspect that this particular
> >part of Hadoop's code is not fast moving, and would still be relevant to
> >even their latest versions. At the very least, it's worth an attempt to
> >contact them upstream first.
> >
> >I do have an interest in updating Fedora's packaged version of Hadoop, and
> >if the patch is good, it'd be nice to have it in upstream so we don't have
> >to keep it around when we move to the newer version. So, even if they
> >aren't willing to support the patch for our version, if they're willing to
> >support it in any of their latest supported versions, I'd be fine keeping
> >the backported patch until we upgrade.
> >
> >As I said in the BZ, I just don't have the expertise to evaluate the patch
> >myself to know if it's good or if it's going to cause problems. A +1 from
> >upstream, a proven packager, or the secondary arch team, would be
> >sufficient for me.
>
> A security expert and a proven packager have evaluated it, and pointed
> out two bugs in the code.
>
> That's minus two so far, how many do you need? 
Oh, I see they've been responded to.  The aliasing problem might be
pre-existing, but is still wrong.

I guess if someone else wants to approve it I don't care.

[Peter Robinson]

On Thu, Jun 30, 2016 at 9:14 AM, Mattias Ellert
<mattias.ellert(a)fysast.uu.se&gt; wrote:
>  Hi!
>
>  I submitted a bugzilla report with a patch that implements an
>  improvement of the hadoop package in Fedora, extending the current
>  incomplete Fedora integration patch that only supports ix86 and x86_64
>  to more architectures. The maintainer is unwilling to apply it, but
>  says that if a proven packager would apply it he would be extatic.
>
>  https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1328076
>
>  Since I am not a proven packager myself, I am looking for one that can
>  perform this task. 
I've asked the secondary arch team to take a look.

P