Obsoleted packages in F40

[Miroslav Suchý]

I just upgraded my workstation to F40 and it surprised how many packages were reported by
`remove-retired-packages`.
There was lots of orphaned packages - there is nothing to do about them. But there was lot
of packages that were removed 
intentionally. See the list at the end of my email.

I want to highlight that we have policy for removing policy
   
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/package-maintainers/Package_Retireme...
which at the end mention adding the package to
    https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/fedora-obsolete-packages

Doing this will improve the experience of users upgrading to the next Fedora version.


For the list below I will submit PR.


List of removed packages in F40:

Removing ldc1.32-libs: LLVM D Compiler libraries
Reason of retirement: Compat package no longer needed

Removing ldc1.30-libs: LLVM D Compiler libraries
Reason of retirement: Compat package no longer needed

Removing clang14-libs: Runtime library for clang
Reason of retirement: This compat package is no longer used:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/LLVM-18

Removing clang11-resource-filesystem: Filesystem package that owns the clang resource
directory
Reason of retirement: Orphaned for 6+ weeks

Removing clang11-libs: Runtime library for clang
Reason of retirement: Orphaned for 6+ weeks

Removing anaconda-user-help: Content for the Anaconda built-in help system
Reason of retirement: Retired due to the build-in help system in the Anaconda GTK UI being
removed

Removing libicu72: International Components for Unicode
Reason of retirement: libicu72 isn't required by anything in fc40, was solely a compat
package for icu 73 rebase

Removing libvpx7: Compat package with libvpx libraries
Reason of retirement: Retire old compat package in F40+

Removing llvm7.0-libs: LLVM shared libraries
Reason of retirement: obsolete and no longer used (#2258890)

Removing pcmciautils: PCMCIA utilities and initialization programs
Reason of retirement: These are only used for 16 bit (basically ISA) PCMCIA cards which
are being actively removed from 
the kernel

Removing python3.7: Version 3.7 of the Python interpreter
Reason of retirement: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/RetirePython3.7


-- 
Miroslav Suchy, RHCA
Red Hat, Manager, Packit and CPT, #brno, #fedora-buildsys

[Tulio Magno Quites Machado Filho]

Miroslav Suchý <msuchy(a)redhat.com&gt; writes:

>  I just upgraded my workstation to F40 and it surprised how many
> packages were reported by `remove-retired-packages`.
>  There was lots of orphaned packages - there is nothing to do about them. But there was
> lot of packages that were removed 
>  intentionally. See the list at the end of my email.
>
>  I want to highlight that we have policy for removing policy
>     
> https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/package-maintainers/Package_Retireme...
>  which at the end mention adding the package to
>      https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/fedora-obsolete-packages 
Thanks for raising this. It was not clear to me these cases should be
completely removed.
I created a PR hoping to make it clear:
https://pagure.io/fedora-docs/package-maintainer-docs/pull-request/151

-- 
Tulio Magno

[Tom Stellard]

On 3/24/24 02:25, Miroslav Suchý wrote:
>  I just upgraded my workstation to F40 and it surprised how many
> packages were reported by `remove-retired-packages`.
>  There was lots of orphaned packages - there is nothing to do about them. But there was
> lot of packages that were removed intentionally. See the list at the end of my email.
>  
>  I want to highlight that we have policy for removing policy
>     
> https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/package-maintainers/Package_Retireme...
>  which at the end mention adding the package to
>      https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/fedora-obsolete-packages
>  
>  Doing this will improve the experience of users upgrading to the next Fedora version.
>   
Sorry, I missed this step for some of my packages.  Is there still
time to add packages to fedora-obsolete-packages for f41?

-Tom

>  
>  For the list below I will submit PR.
>  
>  
>  List of removed packages in F40:
>  
>  Removing ldc1.32-libs: LLVM D Compiler libraries
>  Reason of retirement: Compat package no longer needed
>  
>  Removing ldc1.30-libs: LLVM D Compiler libraries
>  Reason of retirement: Compat package no longer needed
>  
>  Removing clang14-libs: Runtime library for clang
>  Reason of retirement: This compat package is no longer used:
> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/LLVM-18
>  
>  Removing clang11-resource-filesystem: Filesystem package that owns the clang resource
> directory
>  Reason of retirement: Orphaned for 6+ weeks
>  
>  Removing clang11-libs: Runtime library for clang
>  Reason of retirement: Orphaned for 6+ weeks
>  
>  Removing anaconda-user-help: Content for the Anaconda built-in help system
>  Reason of retirement: Retired due to the build-in help system in the Anaconda GTK UI
> being removed
>  
>  Removing libicu72: International Components for Unicode
>  Reason of retirement: libicu72 isn't required by anything in fc40, was solely a
> compat package for icu 73 rebase
>  
>  Removing libvpx7: Compat package with libvpx libraries
>  Reason of retirement: Retire old compat package in F40+
>  
>  Removing llvm7.0-libs: LLVM shared libraries
>  Reason of retirement: obsolete and no longer used (#2258890)
>  
>  Removing pcmciautils: PCMCIA utilities and initialization programs
>  Reason of retirement: These are only used for 16 bit (basically ISA) PCMCIA cards which
> are being actively removed from the kernel
>  
>  Removing python3.7: Version 3.7 of the Python interpreter
>  Reason of retirement: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/RetirePython3.7
>  
>

[Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek]

On Mon, Mar 25, 2024 at 07:30:43AM -0700, Tom Stellard wrote:
>  On 3/24/24 02:25, Miroslav Suchý wrote:
>  > I just upgraded my workstation to F40 and it surprised how many packages were
> reported by `remove-retired-packages`.
>  > There was lots of orphaned packages - there is nothing to do about them. But there
> was lot of packages that were removed intentionally. See the list at the end of my email.
>  > 
>  > I want to highlight that we have policy for removing policy
>  >    
> https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/package-maintainers/Package_Retireme...
>  > which at the end mention adding the package to
>  >     https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/fedora-obsolete-packages
>  > 
>  > Doing this will improve the experience of users upgrading to the next Fedora
> version.
>  > 
>  
>  Sorry, I missed this step for some of my packages.  Is there still
>  time to add packages to fedora-obsolete-packages for f41? 
Yes, both for f40 and f41. There is actually no time limit: if
we figure out that e.g. a package is blocking upgrades, we'll add it to
f-o-p even after the release.

Zbyszek

[Kevin Kofler]

Miroslav Suchý wrote:
>  I just upgraded my workstation to F40 and it surprised how many
> packages
>  were reported by `remove-retired-packages`. There was lots of orphaned
>  packages - there is nothing to do about them. But there was lot of
>  packages that were removed intentionally. See the list at the end of my
>  email.
>  
>  I want to highlight that we have policy for removing policy
>     
> https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/package-maintainers/Package_Retireme...
>  which at the end mention adding the package to
>      https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/fedora-obsolete-packages 
The point of fedora-obsolete-packages is to remove packages that actually 
BREAK things when they remain installed. Otherwise, the best thing to do is 
to NOT obsolete those packages. Users might still rely on them. E.g., they 
might have locally built software that depends on the dropped compatibility 
libraries. Forcefully obsoleting those will break the locally installed 
software.

        Kevin Kofler

[Otto Liljalaakso]

Kevin Kofler via devel kirjoitti 25.3.2024 klo 20.34:
>  Miroslav Suchý wrote:
> > I just upgraded my workstation to F40 and it surprised how many packages
> > were reported by `remove-retired-packages`. There was lots of orphaned
> > packages - there is nothing to do about them. But there was lot of
> > packages that were removed intentionally. See the list at the end of my
> > email.
> >
> > I want to highlight that we have policy for removing policy
> >     
> https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/package-maintainers/Package_Retireme...
> > which at the end mention adding the package to
> >      https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/fedora-obsolete-packages 
I do not think the "Completely Removing a Package" section is meant for 
the cases you mention. The only example given in that section is 
licensing issues, i.e. a situation where Fedora was actually not even 
allowed to distribute the package, either because of the license 
conditions, or because of Fedora's own bylaws.

On the other hand, you do not have to refer to that section if you want 
to remind packages about fedora-obsolete-packages. Right before there is 
"Obsoleting Packages", which asks to consider obsoleting for every 
retirement.

>  The point of fedora-obsolete-packages is to remove packages that
> actually
>  BREAK things when they remain installed. Otherwise, the best thing to do is
>  to NOT obsolete those packages. Users might still rely on them. E.g., they
>  might have locally built software that depends on the dropped compatibility
>  libraries. Forcefully obsoleting those will break the locally installed
>  software. 
I have wondered at this approach even since I discovered that Fedora 
actually handles retired packages on distro upgrade like this. In 
today's always-connected IT environment full of malicious actors and 
threats, I consider it a basic principle to only have software that is 
kept up-to-date by *somebody*. For stuff I built and/or installed by 
myself, I take that responsibility myself, and suffer the consequences 
when I fail to deliver. But if distribution stops providing upgrades to 
a package, I would expect it be removed automatically.

So, I would actually much prefer if package retirement automatically 
added the package to fedora-obsolete-packages. Perhaps there are special 
cases where that would not be a good idea - if there are some, `fedpkg 
retire` could have a flag to prevent that from happening.

[Otto Liljalaakso]

Otto Liljalaakso kirjoitti 30.3.2024 klo 13.41:
>  Kevin Kofler via devel kirjoitti 25.3.2024 klo 20.34:
> > Miroslav Suchý wrote:
> >> I want to highlight that we have policy for removing policy
> >>
> https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/package-maintainers/Package_Retireme...
> >> which at the end mention adding the package to
> >> https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/fedora-obsolete-packages
>
>  I do not think the "Completely Removing a Package" section is meant 
>  for the cases you mention. The only example given in that section is 
>  licensing issues, i.e. a situation where Fedora was actually not even 
>  allowed to distribute the package, either because of the license 
>  conditions, or because of Fedora's own bylaws.
>
>  On the other hand, you do not have to refer to that section if you 
>  want to remind packages about fedora-obsolete-packages. Right before 
>  there is "Obsoleting Packages", which asks to consider obsoleting for 
>  every retirement.  
In attempt to make it more clear that obsoleting should be considered 
every time a package is retired, I submitted a pull request for Package 
Maintainer Docs [1].

[1]: https://pagure.io/fedora-docs/package-maintainer-docs/pull-request/152

[Kevin Kofler]

Otto Liljalaakso wrote:
>  So, I would actually much prefer if package retirement automatically
>  added the package to fedora-obsolete-packages. Perhaps there are special
>  cases where that would not be a good idea - if there are some, `fedpkg
>  retire` could have a flag to prevent that from happening. 
We have had this discussion several times on this list. The compromise that 
was agreed upon is that packages should be added to fedora-obsolete-packages 
ONLY if having those packages installed BREAKS something, e.g., prevents 
upgrading some other package due to broken dependencies, or causes a file 
conflict with some other package. Being retired is by itself NOT a reason to 
forcefully remove a package that users may depend on from their systems. So 
that is what should be documented, not your personal wishes.

        Kevin Kofler

[Otto Liljalaakso]

Kevin Kofler via devel kirjoitti 31.3.2024 klo 14.14:
>  Otto Liljalaakso wrote:
> > So, I would actually much prefer if package retirement automatically
> > added the package to fedora-obsolete-packages. Perhaps there are special
> > cases where that would not be a good idea - if there are some, `fedpkg
> > retire` could have a flag to prevent that from happening.
>  We have had this discussion several times on this list. The compromise that
>  was agreed upon is that packages should be added to fedora-obsolete-packages
>  ONLY if having those packages installed BREAKS something, e.g., prevents
>  upgrading some other package due to broken dependencies, or causes a file
>  conflict with some other package. Being retired is by itself NOT a reason to
>  forcefully remove a package that users may depend on from their systems. So
>  that is what should be documented, not your personal wishes. 
Even if I happen to
spend my time documenting what rules the Fedora 
community agrees, I still reserve the right to voice my opinion on what 
the rule should be. I have not submitted any pull request to change any 
documentation to follow what I suggest above, just to clarify what the 
actual, existing rule is.