1:51 p.m.
Greetings.
Recently FPC oked the use of rich boolean deps. However, we have run
into an issue where the tools used to push updates are not able to
correctly handle these new dependencies.
At today's FESCo meeting we decided to ask maintainers to not use rich
boolean Requires/Recommends for the time being until tooling can catch
up and allow us to push updates with them.
Thanks for your cooperation.
kevin
--
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Rich.2FBoolean_depend...
https://fedorahosted.org/fpc/ticket/593
https://meetbot.fedoraproject.org/fedora-meeting/2016-04-01/fesco.2016-04...
_______________________________________________
devel-announce mailing list
devel-announce(a)lists.fedoraproject.org
http://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/devel-announce@lists.fedorapro...
3:10 p.m.
On 04/01/2016 02:51 PM, Kevin Fenzi wrote:
Greetings.
Recently FPC oked the use of rich boolean deps. However, we have run
into an issue where the tools used to push updates are not able to
correctly handle these new dependencies.
At today's FESCo meeting we decided to ask maintainers to not use rich
boolean Requires/Recommends for the time being until tooling can catch
up and allow us to push updates with them.
Thanks for your cooperation.
kevin
--
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Rich.2FBoolean_depend...
https://fedorahosted.org/fpc/ticket/593
https://meetbot.fedoraproject.org/fedora-meeting/2016-04-01/fesco.2016-04...
To clarify, the use of rich dependencies is banned from use for Requires: and
Recommends: dependencies. It is safe for use on Suggests:, Enhances: and
Supplements:. In particular, this means that it is still acceptable to generate
language subpackages using Supplements.
("Rich dependencies" refers to dependencies that specify "and" or
"or" for
extended rule-processing).
[1] https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Langpacks
_______________________________________________
devel-announce mailing list
devel-announce(a)lists.fedoraproject.org
http://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/devel-announce@lists.fedorapro...
3:11 p.m.
On 04/01/2016 02:51 PM, Kevin Fenzi wrote:
Greetings.
Recently FPC oked the use of rich boolean deps. However, we have run
into an issue where the tools used to push updates are not able to
correctly handle these new dependencies.
At today's FESCo meeting we decided to ask maintainers to not use rich
boolean Requires/Recommends for the time being until tooling can catch
up and allow us to push updates with them.
Just to be clear.
Rich deps in Supplements are OK (yum parser ignores those).
And the language pack implementation needs no changes (uses rich deps
in supplements).
--
Cheers,
Carlos.
3:35 p.m.
On Fri, 1 Apr 2016 16:11:24 -0400
Carlos O'Donell <carlos(a)redhat.com> wrote:
On 04/01/2016 02:51 PM, Kevin Fenzi wrote:
> Greetings.
>
> Recently FPC oked the use of rich boolean deps. However, we have run
> into an issue where the tools used to push updates are not able to
> correctly handle these new dependencies.
>
> At today's FESCo meeting we decided to ask maintainers to not use
> rich boolean Requires/Recommends for the time being until tooling
> can catch up and allow us to push updates with them.
Just to be clear.
Rich deps in Supplements are OK (yum parser ignores those).
And the language pack implementation needs no changes (uses rich deps
in supplements).
Correct.
kevin
6:07 p.m.
>>>> "KF" == Kevin Fenzi <kevin(a)scrye.com>
writes:
KF> At today's FESCo meeting we decided to ask maintainers to not use
KF> rich boolean Requires/Recommends for the time being until tooling
KF> can catch up and allow us to push updates with them.
Could someone look over the language in
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Rich.2FBoolean_depend...
to make certain that I've corrected it as necessary to meet the current
FESCo guidance? I didn't want to leave incorrect information in the
guidelines so I elected to fix this now rather than wait for an FPC meeting.
- J<
6:25 p.m.
On Mon, 04 Apr 2016 18:07:50 -0500
Jason L Tibbitts III <tibbs(a)math.uh.edu> wrote:
>>>>> "KF" == Kevin Fenzi
<kevin(a)scrye.com> writes:
KF> At today's FESCo meeting we decided to ask maintainers to not use
KF> rich boolean Requires/Recommends for the time being until tooling
KF> can catch up and allow us to push updates with them.
Could someone look over the language in
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Rich.2FBoolean_depend...
to make certain that I've corrected it as necessary to meet the
current FESCo guidance? I didn't want to leave incorrect information
in the guidelines so I elected to fix this now rather than wait for
an FPC meeting.
That looks good to me.
kevin
3:18 a.m.
On 2016-04-04, Jason L Tibbitts III <tibbs(a)math.uh.edu> wrote:
>>>>> "KF" == Kevin Fenzi
<kevin(a)scrye.com> writes:
KF> At today's FESCo meeting we decided to ask maintainers to not use
KF> rich boolean Requires/Recommends for the time being until tooling
KF> can catch up and allow us to push updates with them.
Could someone look over the language in
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Rich.2FBoolean_depend...
to make certain that I've corrected it as necessary to meet the current
FESCo guidance?
This changes meaning regarding to F25. Previous text banned rich strong
dependencies in F24 only. This current text extends the ban to all
Fedoras.
Is that intentional?
-- Petr
3:34 a.m.
On 6 Apr 2016 09:19, "Petr Pisar" <ppisar(a)redhat.com> wrote:
On 2016-04-04, Jason L Tibbitts III <tibbs(a)math.uh.edu> wrote:
>>>>>> "KF" == Kevin Fenzi <kevin(a)scrye.com> writes:
>
>KF> At today's FESCo meeting we decided to ask maintainers to not use
>KF> rich boolean Requires/Recommends for the time being until tooling
>KF> can catch up and allow us to push updates with them.
>
> Could someone look over the language in
>
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Rich.2FBoolean_depend...
> to make certain that I've corrected it as necessary to meet
the current
> FESCo guidance?
This changes meaning regarding to F25. Previous text banned rich strong
dependencies in F24 only. This current text extends the ban to all
Fedoras.
Is that intentional?
The issue is it's breaking the mash which indeed affects all Fedora
versions.
Until the tooling is moved from yum to dnf then it's not safe to use the
booleans in requires or recommends.
The reason suggest is left out is that yum currently recognise that tag
(but it does the others) so it doesn't cause mash to fail.
3:49 a.m.
>>>> "PP" == Petr Pisar
<ppisar(a)redhat.com> writes:
PP> This changes meaning regarding to F25. Previous text banned rich
PP> strong dependencies in F24 only. This current text extends the ban
PP> to all Fedoras.
PP> Is that intentional?
It's currently correct according to FESCo's request as I understood it.
While f25 might still be able to compose, if the tools aren't fixed
before the next branch then we'll have to back things out or end up back
in a situation where we can't mash updates.
- J<
6:37 a.m.
On 04/06/2016 04:49 AM, Jason L Tibbitts III wrote:
>>>>> "PP" == Petr Pisar
<ppisar(a)redhat.com> writes:
PP> This changes meaning regarding to F25. Previous text banned rich
PP> strong dependencies in F24 only. This current text extends the ban
PP> to all Fedoras.
PP> Is that intentional?
It's currently correct according to FESCo's request as I understood it.
While f25 might still be able to compose, if the tools aren't fixed
before the next branch then we'll have to back things out or end up back
in a situation where we can't mash updates.
I'd say it's fine for now. Our *hope* is that we will be able to support them
for F25 at some point, but composes *right now* probably don't work, so I think
this wording is fine.
6:54 a.m.
On Thu, Apr 7, 2016 at 7:37 AM, Stephen Gallagher <sgallagh(a)redhat.com> wrote:
On 04/06/2016 04:49 AM, Jason L Tibbitts III wrote:
>>>>>> "PP" == Petr Pisar <ppisar(a)redhat.com> writes:
>
> PP> This changes meaning regarding to F25. Previous text banned rich
> PP> strong dependencies in F24 only. This current text extends the ban
> PP> to all Fedoras.
>
> PP> Is that intentional?
>
> It's currently correct according to FESCo's request as I understood it.
> While f25 might still be able to compose, if the tools aren't fixed
> before the next branch then we'll have to back things out or end up back
> in a situation where we can't mash updates.
>
I'd say it's fine for now. Our *hope* is that we will be able to support them
for F25 at some point, but composes *right now* probably don't work, so I think
this wording is fine.
So you don't expect that mash could be fixed/replaced before the F24
release in June, then?
--
真実はいつも一つ！/ Always, there's only one truth!
10:39 a.m.
On Thu, 7 Apr 2016 07:54:36 -0400
Neal Gompa <ngompa13(a)gmail.com> wrote:
On Thu, Apr 7, 2016 at 7:37 AM, Stephen Gallagher
<sgallagh(a)redhat.com> wrote:
> On 04/06/2016 04:49 AM, Jason L Tibbitts III wrote:
>>>>>>> "PP" == Petr Pisar <ppisar(a)redhat.com>
writes:
>>
>> PP> This changes meaning regarding to F25. Previous text banned
>> PP> rich strong dependencies in F24 only. This current text
>> PP> extends the ban to all Fedoras.
>>
>> PP> Is that intentional?
>>
>> It's currently correct according to FESCo's request as I
>> understood it. While f25 might still be able to compose, if the
>> tools aren't fixed before the next branch then we'll have to back
>> things out or end up back in a situation where we can't mash
>> updates.
>
> I'd say it's fine for now. Our *hope* is that we will be able to
> support them for F25 at some point, but composes *right now*
> probably don't work, so I think this wording is fine.
>
>
So you don't expect that mash could be fixed/replaced before the F24
release in June, then?
mash is going to go away soon. Things are moving to koji signed repos
(where koji does the repo creation, etc).
However, that is still using yum, so it would need to be ported.
If someone would like to help out and work on that, that would be great!
However, I don't see anyone in releng having the cycles to do so right
now. They are busy working on getting rawhide composing again at the
moment.
So, no, absent some resources I don't see this being fixed before f24.
kevin
6:51 a.m.
From: "Kevin Fenzi" <kevin(a)scrye.com>
On Thu, 7 Apr 2016 07:54:36 -0400
Neal Gompa <ngompa13(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 7, 2016 at 7:37 AM, Stephen Gallagher
> <sgallagh(a)redhat.com> wrote:
> > On 04/06/2016 04:49 AM, Jason L Tibbitts III wrote:
> >>>>>>> "PP" == Petr Pisar <ppisar(a)redhat.com>
writes:
> >>
> >> PP> This changes meaning regarding to F25. Previous text banned
> >> PP> rich strong dependencies in F24 only. This current text
> >> PP> extends the ban to all Fedoras.
> >>
> >> PP> Is that intentional?
> >>
> >> It's currently correct according to FESCo's request as I
> >> understood it. While f25 might still be able to compose, if the
> >> tools aren't fixed before the next branch then we'll have to back
> >> things out or end up back in a situation where we can't mash
> >> updates.
> >
> > I'd say it's fine for now. Our *hope* is that we will be able to
> > support them for F25 at some point, but composes *right now*
> > probably don't work, so I think this wording is fine.
> So you don't expect that mash could be fixed/replaced before the F24
> release in June, then?
I've talked to relengs and port of mash [1] will not happen any time soon.
In best case it should make composes for F25.
This is more complicated as pungi, mash and signed repos are linked
together and the replacement of whole releng tools will not happen in a
day. They plan bigger refactoring during the migration of these tools
and replace them one by one. We are trying to allocate resources to make
this done.
Pungi-5 is almost ready to replace current yum based version and making
a library from mash using DNF would probably take 1 man-month.
Honza
[1] https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1156546
7:55 a.m.
On Thursday, April 7, 2016 7:54:36 AM CDT Neal Gompa wrote:
On Thu, Apr 7, 2016 at 7:37 AM, Stephen Gallagher
<sgallagh(a)redhat.com>
wrote:
> On 04/06/2016 04:49 AM, Jason L Tibbitts III wrote:
>>>>>>> "PP" == Petr Pisar <ppisar(a)redhat.com>
writes:
>> PP> This changes meaning regarding to F25. Previous text banned rich
>> PP> strong dependencies in F24 only. This current text extends the ban
>> PP> to all Fedoras.
>>
>> PP> Is that intentional?
>>
>> It's currently correct according to FESCo's request as I understood it.
>> While f25 might still be able to compose, if the tools aren't fixed
>> before the next branch then we'll have to back things out or end up back
>> in a situation where we can't mash updates.
>
> I'd say it's fine for now. Our *hope* is that we will be able to support
> them for F25 at some point, but composes *right now* probably don't work,
> so I think this wording is fine.
So you don't expect that mash could be fixed/replaced before the F24
release in June, then?
All of the replacements use yum also. The issues may be due to rhel7'a rpm not
supporting boolean deps.It is not a small problem to fix and it needs some
people to sit down and figure out how to best deal with them.
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/ReleaseEngineering/PriorityPipeline is some of
what we have on our plate to deal with
Dennis
10:34 a.m.
From: "Dennis Gilmore" <dennis(a)ausil.us>
On Thursday, April 7, 2016 7:54:36 AM CDT Neal Gompa wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 7, 2016 at 7:37 AM, Stephen Gallagher <sgallagh(a)redhat.com>
wrote:
> > On 04/06/2016 04:49 AM, Jason L Tibbitts III wrote:
> >>>>>>> "PP" == Petr Pisar <ppisar(a)redhat.com>
writes:
> >> PP> This changes meaning regarding to F25. Previous text banned rich
> >> PP> strong dependencies in F24 only. This current text extends the ban
> >> PP> to all Fedoras.
> >>
> >> PP> Is that intentional?
> >>
> >> It's currently correct according to FESCo's request as I understood
it.
> >> While f25 might still be able to compose, if the tools aren't fixed
> >> before the next branch then we'll have to back things out or end up
back
> >> in a situation where we can't mash updates.
> >
> > I'd say it's fine for now. Our *hope* is that we will be able to
support
> > them for F25 at some point, but composes *right now* probably don't work,
> > so I think this wording is fine.
>
> So you don't expect that mash could be fixed/replaced before the F24
> release in June, then?
All of the replacements use yum also. The issues may be due to rhel7'a rpm
not
supporting boolean deps.It is not a small problem to fix and it needs some
people to sit down and figure out how to best deal with them.
We've built whole DNF stack supporting rich dependencies for this purpose.
We are in touch with relengs. Hopefully we'll make this done to F25.
Honza
1:15 p.m.
On Thursday, April 14, 2016 11:34:08 AM CDT Honza Šilhan wrote:
> From: "Dennis Gilmore" <dennis(a)ausil.us>
>
> On Thursday, April 7, 2016 7:54:36 AM CDT Neal Gompa wrote:
> > On Thu, Apr 7, 2016 at 7:37 AM, Stephen Gallagher <sgallagh(a)redhat.com>
>
> wrote:
> > > On 04/06/2016 04:49 AM, Jason L Tibbitts III wrote:
> > >>>>>>> "PP" == Petr Pisar
<ppisar(a)redhat.com> writes:
> > >> PP> This changes meaning regarding to F25. Previous text banned
rich
> > >> PP> strong dependencies in F24 only. This current text extends the
> > >> ban
> > >> PP> to all Fedoras.
> > >>
> > >> PP> Is that intentional?
> > >>
> > >> It's currently correct according to FESCo's request as I
understood
> > >> it.
> > >> While f25 might still be able to compose, if the tools aren't
fixed
> > >> before the next branch then we'll have to back things out or end
up
> > >> back
> > >> in a situation where we can't mash updates.
> > >
> > > I'd say it's fine for now. Our *hope* is that we will be able to
> > > support
> > > them for F25 at some point, but composes *right now* probably don't
> > > work,
> > > so I think this wording is fine.
> >
> > So you don't expect that mash could be fixed/replaced before the F24
> > release in June, then?
>
> All of the replacements use yum also. The issues may be due to rhel7'a rpm
> not
> supporting boolean deps.It is not a small problem to fix and it needs some
> people to sit down and figure out how to best deal with them.
We've built whole DNF stack supporting rich dependencies for this purpose.
We are in touch with relengs. Hopefully we'll make this done to F25.
Honza
I am afraid you are not in touch with relengs, I have not had any discussions
with you.
Dennis
1:27 a.m.
On 1. 4. 2016 at 12:51:31, Kevin Fenzi wrote:
Greetings.
Recently FPC oked the use of rich boolean deps. However, we have run
into an issue where the tools used to push updates are not able to
correctly handle these new dependencies.
At today's FESCo meeting we decided to ask maintainers to not use rich
boolean Requires/Recommends for the time being until tooling can catch
up and allow us to push updates with them.
Thanks for your cooperation.
kevin
--
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Rich.2FBoolean_dependenc
ies https://fedorahosted.org/fpc/ticket/593
https://meetbot.fedoraproject.org/fedora-meeting/2016-04-01/fesco.2016-04-01
-17.00.log.html
Is there an estimate as to when the tooling (doesn't matter if it's mash or
pungi) might be ready? Looking at the IRC log, it doesn't say what is the
plan.
Thanks,
Jan
11:08 a.m.
On Tue, 05 Apr 2016 08:27:36 +0200
Jan Zelený <jzeleny(a)redhat.com> wrote:
Is there an estimate as to when the tooling (doesn't matter if
it's
mash or pungi) might be ready? Looking at the IRC log, it doesn't say
what is the plan.
I have no idea. :)
The two things that likely should be looked at are pungi and now the
signed koji repos (which bodhi/updates are going to switch to before
too long from mash).
Are there any resources that might help with this work?
pungi is at: https://pagure.io/pungi
signed repos is still being worked on and will be in koji:
https://pagure.io/koji/pull-requests
kevin
1:23 a.m.
On 5. 4. 2016 at 10:08:20, Kevin Fenzi wrote:
On Tue, 05 Apr 2016 08:27:36 +0200
Jan Zelený <jzeleny(a)redhat.com> wrote:
> Is there an estimate as to when the tooling (doesn't matter if it's
> mash or pungi) might be ready? Looking at the IRC log, it doesn't say
> what is the plan.
I have no idea. :)
The two things that likely should be looked at are pungi and now the
signed koji repos (which bodhi/updates are going to switch to before
too long from mash).
Are there any resources that might help with this work?
pungi is at: https://pagure.io/pungi
signed repos is still being worked on and will be in koji:
https://pagure.io/koji/pull-requests
I will ask around and see what I can do.
Thanks,
Jan
2935
days inactive
2948
days old
18 comments
10 participants
participants (10)
-
Carlos O'Donell -
Dennis Gilmore -
Honza Silhan -
James Hogarth -
Jan Zelený -
Jason L Tibbitts III -
Kevin Fenzi -
Neal Gompa -
Petr Pisar -
Stephen Gallagher