7:57 a.m.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/550448
Could somebody from the EPEL project leaders please explain this?
12:51 p.m.
On Mon, 9 Aug 2010 14:57:14 +0200
Michael Schwendt <mschwendt(a)gmail.com> wrote:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/550448
Could somebody from the EPEL project leaders please explain this?
Thats sad. :(
I remember long ago using mock on el4, so I don't know when it broke,
but I am pretty sure it worked at one point. ;(
So, yes, we should remove this package or they should fix it to work on
EL4. It's quite disappointing that they were shipping it broken with
bug filed all this time.
Does it really need python 2.4?
Or would something like python-kitchen help?
I'll ask that on the bug.
kevin
4:18 p.m.
On Mon, 9 Aug 2010 11:51:50 -0600, Kevin wrote:
On Mon, 9 Aug 2010 14:57:14 +0200
Michael Schwendt <mschwendt(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/550448
>
> Could somebody from the EPEL project leaders please explain this?
Thats sad. :(
I remember long ago using mock on el4, so I don't know when it broke,
but I am pretty sure it worked at one point. ;(
So, yes, we should remove this package or they should fix it to work on
EL4. It's quite disappointing that they were shipping it broken with
bug filed all this time.
Does it really need python 2.4?
Or would something like python-kitchen help?
I'll ask that on the bug.
Here's info about the package life-time,
mock-0.7.2-1.el4.1
http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/buildinfo?buildID=108451
built on 2009-06-20 (probably when koji was populated for epel)
but as old as 2007 according to the spec %changelog
and bodhi knows about a version upgrade directly to 1.0.1, introducing
the Python 2.4 dependency five months later:
mock-1.0.1-1.el4 bugfix update
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/mock-1.0.1-1.el4
Date Released: 2009-12-01 17:49:47
Details
Fix creation of root cache tarballs
Bugs Fixed
540997 - Intermittent errors creating mock root cache tarball
^^^^^^
^^
^
That's for a Fedora 12 bug report. The proposed final patch replaces just
a few lines. No EPEL4 specific bugs mentioned. Not even the jump from
0.7.2 to 1.0.1 was warned about.
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/EPEL/GuidelinesAndPolicies#Package_maintena...
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/EPEL/FAQ#How_does_Fedora_Project_ensure_the...
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/EPEL/FAQ#How_long_are_EPEL_packages_updated.3F
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/EPEL/FAQ#How_can_we_be_sure_that_someone_wi...
Hmmm... a clever combination of FAQs.
10:54 a.m.
On Mon, 9 Aug 2010 23:18:38 +0200
Michael Schwendt <mschwendt(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> On Mon, 9 Aug 2010 14:57:14 +0200
> Michael Schwendt <mschwendt(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > https://bugzilla.redhat.com/550448
> >
> > Could somebody from the EPEL project leaders please explain this?
Here's info about the package life-time,
...snip...
Hmmm... a clever combination of FAQs.
Yes, they appear to have failed. ;(
So, how do we get out of this mess?
1. Drop mock from el4.
2. Fix it to work with native python.
3. Downgrade (with epoch) back to last working version.
4. Something else?
kevin
11:13 a.m.
On Mon, Aug 9, 2010 at 15:18, Michael Schwendt <mschwendt(a)gmail.com> wrote:
That's for a Fedora 12 bug report. The proposed final patch
replaces just
a few lines. No EPEL4 specific bugs mentioned. Not even the jump from
0.7.2 to 1.0.1 was warned about.
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/EPEL/GuidelinesAndPolicies#Package_maintena...
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/EPEL/FAQ#How_does_Fedora_Project_ensure_the...
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/EPEL/FAQ#How_long_are_EPEL_packages_updated.3F
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/EPEL/FAQ#How_can_we_be_sure_that_someone_wi...
Hmmm... a clever combination of FAQs.
The best thing about EPEL is that there are no " the EPEL project
leaders" beyond those that are interested in the project. Since you
have expressed a lot of interest in things.. what are your ideas on
how we can fix this problem?
1) We should remove the FAQ documents?
2) Would you like to be the EPEL-EL4 Tsar to deal with these issues?
3) Etc?
--
Stephen J Smoogen.
“The core skill of innovators is error recovery, not failure avoidance.”
Randy Nelson, President of Pixar University.
"We have a strategic plan. It's called doing things.""
— Herb Kelleher, founder Southwest Airlines
4:53 p.m.
On Tue, 10 Aug 2010 10:13:52 -0600, Stephen wrote:
The best thing about EPEL is that there are no " the EPEL
project
leaders" beyond those that are interested in the project.
There's a page that distinguishes between the
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/EPEL_Steering_Committee
and the
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/EPEL_SIG
It's rather detailed and, for example, explains that the EPEL Steering
Committee handles "practical packaging [...] maintenance and update policy
for EPEL", and therefore its members should have interest in an issue like
this.
Since you have expressed a lot of interest in things..
Whether I have "a lot of interest" in EPEL, some interest only, or no
interest at all, depends on several criteria. One such criterion is
whether EPEL is founded on solid groundwork.
The fact that this Mock breakage would have been found by a broken deps
check (which is on the EPEL schedule for years) is just a minor detail.
what are your ideas on how we can fix this problem?
I don't understand EPEL yet.
1) We should remove the FAQ documents?
Seriously?
There's a lot of "talk" in those FAQs, which doesn't match reality.
I'd
favour a more honest/self-critical view of what EPEL is able to deliver
today … as opposed to what it could deliver if it had enough volunteers
to contribute.
2) Would you like to be the EPEL-EL4 Tsar to deal with these issues?
At present, you could not even tell _how_ "to deal with these issues".
I've found only one. How many others are there? (e.g. run-time issues)
One thing for sure, it wouldn't be much fun to have one group bring
a package into EPEL and see how they drop the ball long before dist EOL.
And then point at the FAQ and hope for another person (or group) to
drag the package out of the mud.
Bodhi doesn't know about any substantial testing of EPEL updates:
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/metrics/?release=EL-4
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/metrics/?release=EL-5
7:46 p.m.
On Tue, Aug 10, 2010 at 15:53, Michael Schwendt <mschwendt(a)gmail.com> wrote:
On Tue, 10 Aug 2010 10:13:52 -0600, Stephen wrote:
> The best thing about EPEL is that there are no " the EPEL project
> leaders" beyond those that are interested in the project.
There's a page that distinguishes between the
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/EPEL_Steering_Committee
and the
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/EPEL_SIG
It's rather detailed and, for example, explains that the EPEL Steering
Committee handles "practical packaging [...] maintenance and update policy
for EPEL", and therefore its members should have interest in an issue like
this.
Yeah... well ok I will start rewriting those.
> Since you have expressed a lot of interest in things..
Whether I have "a lot of interest" in EPEL, some interest only, or no
interest at all, depends on several criteria. One such criterion is
whether EPEL is founded on solid groundwork.
The fact that this Mock breakage would have been found by a broken deps
check (which is on the EPEL schedule for years) is just a minor detail.
You are correct. I will see what can be done to fix this with the koji
side of things.
> what are your ideas on how we can fix this problem?
I don't understand EPEL yet.
Me either brother, me either.
> 1) We should remove the FAQ documents?
Seriously?
Yes. Seriously.. I know it sounded snarky, but I am getting over a 2
day stomach flu bug and am just wanting ideas on what we can do right.
There's a lot of "talk" in those FAQs, which
doesn't match reality. I'd
favour a more honest/self-critical view of what EPEL is able to deliver
today … as opposed to what it could deliver if it had enough volunteers
to contribute.
> 2) Would you like to be the EPEL-EL4 Tsar to deal with these issues?
At present, you could not even tell _how_ "to deal with these issues".
I've found only one. How many others are there? (e.g. run-time issues)
One thing for sure, it wouldn't be much fun to have one group bring
a package into EPEL and see how they drop the ball long before dist EOL.
And then point at the FAQ and hope for another person (or group) to
drag the package out of the mud.
Bodhi doesn't know about any substantial testing of EPEL updates:
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/metrics/?release=EL-4
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/metrics/?release=EL-5
Yes.. that needs to change also.
--
Stephen J Smoogen.
“The core skill of innovators is error recovery, not failure avoidance.”
Randy Nelson, President of Pixar University.
"We have a strategic plan. It's called doing things.""
— Herb Kelleher, founder Southwest Airlines
1:20 p.m.
On Tue, 10 Aug 2010 23:53:28 +0200
Michael Schwendt <mschwendt(a)gmail.com> wrote:
On Tue, 10 Aug 2010 10:13:52 -0600, Stephen wrote:
> 1) We should remove the FAQ documents?
Seriously?
There's a lot of "talk" in those FAQs, which doesn't match reality.
I'd favour a more honest/self-critical view of what EPEL is able to
deliver today … as opposed to what it could deliver if it had enough
volunteers to contribute.
Yeah, it would be great to re-do/re-work the wiki pages.
Would someone be willing to step up to do that?
> 2) Would you like to be the EPEL-EL4 Tsar to deal with these
issues?
At present, you could not even tell _how_ "to deal with these issues".
I've found only one. How many others are there? (e.g. run-time issues)
One thing for sure, it wouldn't be much fun to have one group bring
a package into EPEL and see how they drop the ball long before dist
EOL. And then point at the FAQ and hope for another person (or group)
to drag the package out of the mud.
Bodhi doesn't know about any substantial testing of EPEL updates:
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/metrics/?release=EL-4
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/metrics/?release=EL-5
Hopefully we can get that to change.
fedora-easy-karma now works in epel5 at least. (After several rounds of
bug fixing from Till. Thanks!).
kevin
1:31 p.m.
On Thu, Aug 12, 2010 at 12:20, Kevin Fenzi <kevin(a)scrye.com> wrote:
On Tue, 10 Aug 2010 23:53:28 +0200
Michael Schwendt <mschwendt(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> On Tue, 10 Aug 2010 10:13:52 -0600, Stephen wrote:
> > 1) We should remove the FAQ documents?
>
> Seriously?
>
> There's a lot of "talk" in those FAQs, which doesn't match
reality.
> I'd favour a more honest/self-critical view of what EPEL is able to
> deliver today … as opposed to what it could deliver if it had enough
> volunteers to contribute.
Yeah, it would be great to re-do/re-work the wiki pages.
Would someone be willing to step up to do that?
Sounds like a SouthWest FAD to me :). Though a trip to Europe to meet
Michael would be interesting.
> > 2) Would you like to be the EPEL-EL4 Tsar to deal with these
issues?
>
> At present, you could not even tell _how_ "to deal with these issues".
> I've found only one. How many others are there? (e.g. run-time issues)
>
> One thing for sure, it wouldn't be much fun to have one group bring
> a package into EPEL and see how they drop the ball long before dist
>>
--
Stephen J Smoogen.
“The core skill of innovators is error recovery, not failure avoidance.”
Randy Nelson, President of Pixar University.
"We have a strategic plan. It's called doing things.""
— Herb Kelleher, founder Southwest Airlines
5005
days inactive
5008
days old
epel-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
8 comments
3 participants
participants (3)
-
Kevin Fenzi -
Michael Schwendt -
Stephen John Smoogen