pycairo

[Christopher Meng]

Hi list,

I'm building some packages which depend on the latest version of
pycairo, and an inprogress feature also needs its
rebuild(https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1005447) as well.

However the version in Fedora hasn't been updated for more than a
year, and also there is a name change request to change it to
python-pycairo(https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=731891).

Can anyone offer some help there?

Thanks in advance.


Yours sincerely,
Christopher Meng

Always playing in Fedora Project

http://cicku.me

[Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek]

On Sun, Oct 20, 2013 at 11:27:22AM +0800, Christopher Meng wrote:
>  Hi list,
>  
>  I'm building some packages which depend on the latest version of
>  pycairo, and an inprogress feature also needs its
>  rebuild(https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1005447) as well.
>  
>  However the version in Fedora hasn't been updated for more than a
>  year, and also there is a name change request to change it to
>  python-pycairo(https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=731891). 
So, is this
Review request still "live" and waiting for a reviewer,
or is is "dead", and waiting for a new prospective maintainer?
It would be great if the involved parties could provide some hints.

Zbyszek

[Mathieu Bridon]

On Wed, 2013-10-23 at 05:21 +0200, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek wrote:
>  On Sun, Oct 20, 2013 at 11:27:22AM +0800, Christopher Meng wrote:
>  > Hi list,
>  > 
>  > I'm building some packages which depend on the latest version of
>  > pycairo, and an inprogress feature also needs its
>  > rebuild(https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1005447) as well.
>  > 
>  > However the version in Fedora hasn't been updated for more than a
>  > year, and also there is a name change request to change it to
>  > python-pycairo(https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=731891).
>  So, is this Review request still "live" and waiting for a reviewer,
>  or is is "dead", and waiting for a new prospective maintainer?
>  It would be great if the involved parties could provide some hints. 
Note that the package was renamed anyway, without waiting for the rename
review request to be completed:
http://pkgs.fedoraproject.org/cgit/pycairo.git/commit/?id=c700bd496bee56d...


-- 
Mathieu

[Christopher Meng]

On Wed, Oct 23, 2013 at 11:40 AM, Mathieu Bridon
<bochecha(a)fedoraproject.org&gt; wrote:
>  Note that the package was renamed anyway, without waiting for the
> rename
>  review request to be completed:
>
> http://pkgs.fedoraproject.org/cgit/pycairo.git/commit/?id=c700bd496bee56d...
And I would ask why he can do that without reviews?

http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Package_Renaming_Process

Just because he is working at Red Hat and has such power inherited?

[Mathieu Bridon]

On Wed, 2013-10-23 at 11:46 +0800, Christopher Meng wrote:
>  On Wed, Oct 23, 2013 at 11:40 AM, Mathieu Bridon
>  <bochecha(a)fedoraproject.org&gt; wrote:
>  > Note that the package was renamed anyway, without waiting for the rename
>  > review request to be completed:
>  >
> http://pkgs.fedoraproject.org/cgit/pycairo.git/commit/?id=c700bd496bee56d...
>  
>  And I would ask why he can do that without reviews?
>  
>  http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Package_Renaming_Process
>  
>  Just because he is working at Red Hat and has such power inherited? 
Or more likely, because I was wrong: the renaming was done in Git long
before the review request was opened.

So the more likely explanation is that Matthew (who renamed the package
in Git) didn't know about the process, and John tried to fix things up
by creating the review request when he realized it.

Remember: assume good faith and double check the dates (that last one is
for me) ;)


-- 
Mathieu

[Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek]

On Wed, Oct 23, 2013 at 11:50:39AM +0800, Mathieu Bridon wrote:
>  On Wed, 2013-10-23 at 11:46 +0800, Christopher Meng wrote:
>  > On Wed, Oct 23, 2013 at 11:40 AM, Mathieu Bridon
>  > <bochecha(a)fedoraproject.org&gt; wrote:
>  > > Note that the package was renamed anyway, without waiting for the rename
>  > > review request to be completed:
>  > >
> http://pkgs.fedoraproject.org/cgit/pycairo.git/commit/?id=c700bd496bee56d...
It seems that the Provides and Obsoletes were done properly.
So there are still two issues:
1. open bug
2. python-cairo is still using pycairo repository name

Essentially, the renaming isn't finished.

Zbyszek

[Kevin Fenzi]

On Wed, 23 Oct 2013 16:55:02 +0200
Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek <zbyszek(a)in.waw.pl&gt; wrote:

>  On Wed, Oct 23, 2013 at 11:50:39AM +0800, Mathieu Bridon wrote:
>  > On Wed, 2013-10-23 at 11:46 +0800, Christopher Meng wrote:
>  > > On Wed, Oct 23, 2013 at 11:40 AM, Mathieu Bridon
>  > > <bochecha(a)fedoraproject.org&gt; wrote:
>  > > > Note that the package was renamed anyway, without waiting for
>  > > > the rename review request to be completed:
>  > > >
> http://pkgs.fedoraproject.org/cgit/pycairo.git/commit/?id=c700bd496bee56d...
>  
>  It seems that the Provides and Obsoletes were done properly.
>  So there are still two issues:
>  1. open bug
>  2. python-cairo is still using pycairo repository name
>  
>  Essentially, the renaming isn't finished. 
Right. So, I would suggest: 

Since the rename review is stalled, someone update and submit a new
rename review (closing the old one as a duplicate) then get it
reviewed. 

The only slight wrinkle in this is the folks who have commit on pycairo
might also want such on the new python-cairo, as long as whoever
submits the new rename review is ok with adding any of them that want
it, I don't see an issue. 

Thoughts?

kevin

[Christopher Meng]

On Oct 24, 2013 1:26 AM, "Kevin Fenzi" <kevin(a)scrye.com&gt; wrote:
>  Right. So, I would suggest:
>
>  Since the rename review is stalled, someone update and submit a new
>  rename review (closing the old one as a duplicate) then get it
>  reviewed.
>
>  The only slight wrinkle in this is the folks who have commit on pycairo
>  might also want such on the new python-cairo, as long as whoever
>  submits the new rename review is ok with adding any of them that want
>  it, I don't see an issue. 
I hope one of these people(also in python3-cairo) can submit a new review
request.

[Tim Lauridsen]

python3-cairo is a separate package, it contains the latest upstream
release 1.10.0
but it looks like the License is wrong in the .spec (License: MPLv1.1 or
LGPLv2)
https://apps.fedoraproject.org/packages/python3-cairo/sources/spec/

<from upstream homepage>
pycairo is licensed under the GNU Lesser General Public License (LGPL)
version 3.

So it should be good, no new review needed.

Tim






On Thu, Oct 24, 2013 at 2:18 AM, Christopher Meng <cickumqt(a)gmail.com&gt;wrote:

>  On Oct 24, 2013 1:26 AM, "Kevin Fenzi" <kevin(a)scrye.com&gt; wrote:
>  > Right. So, I would suggest:
>  >
>  > Since the rename review is stalled, someone update and submit a new
>  > rename review (closing the old one as a duplicate) then get it
>  > reviewed.
>  >
>  > The only slight wrinkle in this is the folks who have commit on pycairo
>  > might also want such on the new python-cairo, as long as whoever
>  > submits the new rename review is ok with adding any of them that want
>  > it, I don't see an issue.
>
>  I hope one of these people(also in python3-cairo) can submit a new review
>  request.
>
>  --
>  devel mailing list
>  devel(a)lists.fedoraproject.org
>  https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
>  Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
>

[Christopher Meng]

So any new progress here?

I haven't seen any updates still so far.

[Christopher Meng]

On Wed, Oct 23, 2013 at 11:21 AM, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek
<zbyszek(a)in.waw.pl&gt; wrote:
>  So, is this Review request still "live" and waiting for a
> reviewer,
>  or is is "dead", and waiting for a new prospective maintainer?
>  It would be great if the involved parties could provide some hints. 
Dead de facto. But it has many comaintainers. I hope we can finish
this review but unfortunately J5 is not working on this area now,
thusly we need someone else.

Essentially, this package should get an update first as the latest
version was released in 2011, then we can see if it's possible to
change its name. But now as name change bug has been posted for
years(from f15 era, then dup of this one), we should think about both
simultaneously.

All comaintainers of this package are not willing to do that:

https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/acls/name/pycairo

alexl
caillon
caolanm
hadess
mclasen
rhughes
rstrode
ssp
xiphmont

This package is pretty old comparing with other distros, this is not
bleeding edge but really need an update. And if someone want to set
python3 as default interpreter, you will find Fedora doesn't have its
py3 version, which is also being required by at least these on py2.x
version:

bkchem
dogtail
gnome-activity-journal
gnome-desktop
graphite-web
gtg
icaro
labyrinth
lv2-fil-plugins
pitivi
pycairo-devel
pygobject3
pygtk2
python-cairosvg
python-matplotlib
python-pycha
python-xdot
yumex

So? I don't know.

I hope some people like rhughes/hadness(who is of course alive and has
commit acl, too) can update it. But I think my words are tiny.
--

Yours sincerely,
Christopher Meng

Fєdоґa ї₴ al$о a кїпd оf нaт lїкє Яёd Haт.

http://cicku.me