2:23 p.m.
Reminder: Next meeting on 20080213 at 18:00 UTC in
#fedora-meeting
Summary will be part of this weeks report (as always)
00:00:59 < knurd> | Hi everybody; who's around for the EPEL meeting?
00:00:59 * | knurd likes to remind everyone that the schedule for todays
meeting as well as a list of all open tasks can be found on
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/EPEL/Schedule
00:00:59 --- | knurd has changed the topic to: EPEL Sig meeting -- Meeting
rules at http://www.fedoraproject.org/wiki/Extras/Schedule/MeetingGuidelines -- Init
process
00:01:02 <-- | mefoster has left #fedora-meeting ( "Konversation
terminated!")
00:01:03 < knurd> | all mine
00:01:21 < knurd> | thx bugzappers
00:01:29 <-- | No5251 has quit ("Kein Anschluss unter dieser
Nummer!")
00:01:37 * | nirik is still here.
00:02:29 --> | J5 (John (J5) Palmieri) has joined #fedora-meeting
00:02:36 < knurd> | anybody seen mmcgrath? he seems rather busy in the past
days afaics
00:02:42 < knurd> | or is he on vacation?
00:03:07 < nirik> | he's around... just busy I think.
00:03:18 <-- | axelilly has left #fedora-meeting ( )
00:03:28 * | knurd wonders where smooge went
00:03:59 < knurd> | well, let's start really slow
00:04:14 < knurd> | nirik, do you know if/where the EPEL dep checker script
runs?
00:04:31 < knurd> | mmcgrath or dgilmore installed one months ago
00:04:39 < nirik> | no idea. There is one mschwent had, but also one mmcgrath
had setup...
00:04:39 < knurd> | but the one from mschwendt looks way better
00:05:10 < knurd> | nirik, did mschwendt install it as a cron job somewhere?
00:05:18 < smooge> | potty break
00:05:18 < knurd> | I thought he just kicked it manually
00:05:24 < nirik> | no idea. I haven't seen it run...
00:05:28 < nirik> | I can mail him and ask.
00:06:18 < knurd> | nirik, feel free to mail him, but I'd prefer to know
first if there is a script running somewhere alreday :/
00:06:20 < smooge> | the one that mmcgrath installed I think was broken and I
was trying to get some time to fix it.. which only came up now ;(. So mschwents is better
00:06:47 < knurd> | smooge, do you have access to the machined wher the old
script ran?
00:07:01 < knurd> | or shall we just ask mschwendt to install his somewhere?
00:07:20 < knurd> | he likely has permissions to do so
00:07:52 < smooge> | no I don't mmcgrath sent out an email a while back
00:08:02 < smooge> | with the script in it.
00:08:20 < nirik> |
http://mschwendt.fedorapeople.org/extras-repoclosure-modified-20080115.tgz is mschewnts
script
00:09:26 < knurd> | so, how to move on? ask mschwendt to install is? nirik, or
do you want to handle that? you likely have the needed permissions as well
00:09:42 --> | mdomsch (Matt_Domsch) has joined #fedora-meeting
00:10:11 < smooge> | mdomsch, has permission to. he can do anything :)
00:10:17 < nirik> | sure, I can ask him if we can just run it on the buildsys
box, or what.
00:10:27 < knurd> | nirik, k, thx
00:10:38 --> | JonRob (purple) has joined #fedora-meeting
00:10:40 --- | knurd has changed the topic to: EPEL SIG Meeting | next testing
-> stable move | knurd |
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/EPEL/Tasks/NextTestingStableMove
00:10:50 < knurd> | is prepared; docs were imrpoved as well
00:11:06 < knurd> | the whole preparation can be done in about 10 or 15
minutes
00:11:15 < knurd> | maybe even less with a quick machine
00:11:31 < knurd> | any questions? otherwise I'll quickly move on
00:11:37 --> | choke (Colby Hoke) has joined #fedora-meeting
00:11:50 --- | knurd has changed the topic to: EPEL SIG Meeting |
KojiAndBodhiForEpel | mmcgrath |
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/EPEL/Tasks/KojiAndBodhiForEpel
00:12:00 < nirik> | sounds good to me.
00:12:01 < knurd> | no mmcgrath, no Jeff_S thus likely no news
00:12:08 --- | knurd has changed the topic to: EPEL SIG Meeting | broken dep
reports go to the list | mmcgrath ? | http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/EPEL/Tasks/Misc
00:12:16 < knurd> | discussed already, thus skipping this
00:12:23 --- | knurd has changed the topic to: EPEL SIG Meeting | fill the
steering committee | all | http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/EPEL/Tasks/Misc
00:12:46 < knurd> | smooge, +1 for you becoming a steering committee member
00:13:08 < nirik> | +1 here.
00:13:19 < knurd> | but I think we need to have more +1 from at least 3 or
four other steering committee members
00:13:24 --> | stahnma (Michael Stahnke) has joined #fedora-meeting
00:13:32 * | stahnma arrives
00:13:35 * | quaid is here too
00:13:38 < knurd> | thus I suppose we need to wait another week or two before
it becomes official
00:13:40 < knurd> | ohh
00:13:45 < knurd> | okay, htere are two more
00:13:53 < knurd> | hi quaid, hi stahnma
00:14:06 < stahnma> | g'day
00:14:20 < knurd> | quaid, smooge, nirik and I just say "smooge, +1 for
smooge becoming a steering committee member"
00:14:23 --- | choke is now known as c_hoke
00:14:23 * | smooge waits to see if he is cool enough to sit with at the big
kids table
00:14:26 < quaid> | smooge for steering committee? +1
00:14:26 < stahnma> | +1
00:14:35 < knurd> | k, it's official now
00:14:39 * | quaid is a little kid in a booster chair
00:14:43 < knurd> | welcome to the stering committee smooge
00:14:44 < stahnma> | welcome to the big kids table
00:15:00 < knurd> | k, that makes seven again
00:15:06 < knurd> | I mentioned it on the list already
00:15:15 < knurd> | someone else wants to leave sooner or later
00:15:20 * | knurd is that someone else
00:15:38 < knurd> | I can stay around and help, but I'd like to get a more
free time for RPM Fusion
00:15:49 < knurd> | and some fresh ideas for EPEL would help as well
00:15:59 --- | stickster_afk is now known as stickster
00:16:13 < knurd> | thus I'd suggest we elect a new chairmen over the next
two weeks/in the next meeting
00:16:18 --- | c_hoke is now known as c_hoke_
00:16:23 < quaid> | I wonder if any of the RHTers who deal with RHX would be
interested
00:16:31 < knurd> | any volunteers for that job?
00:16:46 < knurd> | quaid, I haven't seen much from them yet
00:16:56 * | mmcgrath is here now, sorry
00:16:58 * | quaid cannot do it but thinks any of the current and new member
dude would be good
00:16:58 --- | c_hoke_ is now known as c_hoke
00:16:59 < knurd> | there was only the zenoss discussions, but that just faded
out
00:17:00 * | stahnma doesn't know if he has the time available....
00:17:13 < quaid> | knurd: that is part of the idea, maybe if they were more
involved as leaders ...
00:17:15 < knurd> | nirik do you want to do it?
00:17:26 < quaid> | pile on nirik!
00:17:38 < knurd> | quaid, as I mentioned on the list: we can make the
steering committee even bigger if we want to
00:17:44 < knurd> | and if it's good for EPEL
00:17:48 < nirik> | ha. I would do it if no one else wanted the job... ;) If
someone did that would be fine with me too... I am also low on time.
00:18:01 --> | ldimagg__ (Len DiMaggio) has joined #fedora-meeting
00:18:08 <-- | ldimaggi_ has quit (Read error: 110 (Connection timed out))
00:18:12 < stahnma> | that's how I feel, and can only make meetings
occassionally as they are in the middle of $DAYJOB
00:18:12 < knurd> | seven people in hte steering committe IMHO is a goal and
not a hard number/must
00:18:30 < knurd> | stahnma, with me out of the mix you guys could find a
better time
00:18:38 < knurd> | as then everyone is based in the US
00:18:42 < knurd> | afaics
00:19:00 < stahnma> | I though Jeff_S was in Europe somewhere...
00:19:05 < quaid> | true that
00:19:07 < knurd> | he is?
00:19:13 < quaid> | Portland, OR I thought
00:19:23 * | stahnma could be confused, or maybe he was travelling when I
asked
00:19:28 < quaid> | sheltren?
00:19:33 * | smooge deals with 20 phone calls at once...
00:19:39 < smooge> | thanks everyone for the support
00:19:52 < knurd> | have fun with the phone
00:20:05 < knurd> | smooge, or would you me interested in the chairmen's
job?
00:20:10 < smooge> | I am interested
00:20:29 < smooge> | my platform is free beer and penguin mints
00:20:58 < knurd> | so, that makes smooge ("I am interested") and
nirik ("I would do it if no one else wanted the job...[...] I am also low on
time.")
00:21:03 < knurd> | afaics
00:21:21 < knurd> | I'd say we continue to discuss this on the list over
the next few days
00:21:25 < nirik> | perhaps throw that to the list and see if anyone else is
interested, and we can vote/dicuss next meeting?
00:21:27 < smooge> | okie dokie
00:21:30 < knurd> | and then find a solution in the next meeting?
00:21:32 < stahnma> | +
00:21:57 < knurd> | k, seems we are all in agreement here
00:22:06 < knurd> | I'll annouce it on the list then
00:22:18 < knurd> | anything else regarding this topic?
00:22:32 < knurd> | any other self nominations for EPEL steeting committee
members?
00:23:19 * | knurd takes that as "no" and "no" and moves
on
00:23:26 --- | knurd has changed the topic to: EPEL SIG Meeting | broken dep
reports go to the list | mmcgrath ? | http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/EPEL/Tasks/Misc
00:23:29 < knurd> | mmcgrath, still around?
00:23:42 < mmcgrath> | yeah
00:23:47 < knurd> | is "the broken deps report" script stil lrunning
for EPEL?
00:23:51 < nirik> | knurd: I mailed mschewnt asking about setting his script
up on the buildsys box
00:23:52 * | mdomsch is late I see
00:23:56 < mmcgrath> | AFAIK it is. let me look.
00:23:57 < mdomsch> | what did I get volunteered for?
00:24:46 < knurd> | mdomsch, nothing yet; but if you want to become a EPEL
steering committee member feel free to self nominate
00:24:49 < mmcgrath> | knurd: hrm, looks like the cron job got removed.
00:24:50 < smooge> | mdomsch, installing the script onto the buildsys box :)..
but I was joking
00:25:04 < mmcgrath> | I'll need to figure out what happened to it but will
make sure its running.
00:25:08 --> | rharrison (Russell Harrison) has joined #fedora-meeting
00:25:15 < knurd> | mmcgrath, don't invest any work
00:25:27 < knurd> | mmcgrath, afaics the script from mschwendt is way better
00:25:33 < knurd> | mmcgrath, I#d say we switch to his one
00:25:50 < knurd> | mmcgrath, mschwendt might even have permissions to set it
up on that box
00:25:56 < knurd> | and his script mails the list
00:26:08 < knurd> | something the old script didn't do
00:26:14 < mmcgrath> | knurd: that totally works for me, mschwendt rocks.
00:26:36 < mmcgrath> | hopefully his script doesn't take an hour to run
either :-/
00:26:57 < knurd> | mmcgrath, k; then we are all up2date then; nirik will talk
to mschwendt about it
00:27:03 < knurd> | (or did already ;-) )
00:27:15 --- | knurd has changed the topic to: EPEL SIG Meeting | Free
discussion around EPEL
00:27:18 < nirik> | well, sent email in any case.
00:27:20 < knurd> | anything else?
00:27:35 < smooge> | ok how are we doing for packages etc?
00:27:46 < smooge> | how many are still in waiting to be branched etc? and wish
list?
00:27:53 --- | jwb is now known as jwb_gone
00:28:12 < stahnma> | smooge: that sounds like good metrics to have
00:28:18 < knurd> | smooge, we have 1000 srpms now in epel5 + epel5 testing
and come close to 2000 rpms
00:28:39 < smooge> | is that src.rpms or combined x.rpms and src.rpms?
00:28:44 < knurd> | waiting to be branched -> there are about 5500 package
in fedora rawhide iirc
00:28:59 < knurd> | about 1600 srpms in rhel5
00:29:03 < smooge> | hmmm I counted 4500 src.rpms in fedora rawhide earlier
this week
00:29:15 * | nirik should poke ixs and silug again... there are some perl
packages I need before I can branch munin...
00:29:32 < knurd> | smooge,
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackageMaintainers/PackageStatus says:
00:29:33 < knurd> | - 5634 packages
00:29:34 < knurd> | - 9260 binary rpms in devel
00:29:52 < knurd> | but I'm not sure how that's counted
00:30:11 < knurd> | my hope for the long term future for EPEL was: continue as
we do
00:30:14 < nirik> | I see 5299 src.rpms in devel right now
00:30:31 < knurd> | and when RHEL6 ships poke Fedora maintainers and build
lots of stuff for EPEL
00:30:47 < smooge> | ah I was looking at 8/Everthings/SRPMS directory
00:31:10 < knurd> | smooge, then you missed new pacakges that entered Fedora
since F8 was shipped
00:31:19 < knurd> | as those are in the updates repo only
00:31:26 < smooge> | yeah.. 5299 is what I see too.
00:32:40 < smooge> | Ok one thing I would like to look at doing is getting a
discussion going on when we move packages from testing to stable. I would like to work on
a regular schedule for it so that 'customers' would know that Black Tuesday was
coming up or something
00:32:40 < knurd> | some of them make not much sense for EPEL
00:32:46 < knurd> | hunspell-dicts for example
00:33:21 < knurd> | smooge, the dates are: mid months around the 15th for
EPEL4 and early each months around the 1st for EPEL5
00:33:29 < smooge> | duh
00:33:35 < smooge> | I am way behind on stuff
00:33:50 < knurd> | tha's quite new; we settled on that one or two
meetings ago
00:33:51 < smooge> | ok need to go over the wiki to catch up with stuff.
00:34:15 < knurd> | smooge, np, keeping track of everything in Fedora-land is
hard
00:35:02 < knurd> | anything else?
00:35:12 < smooge> | no thats about it.
00:35:32 <-- | kital has quit (Read error: 110 (Connection timed out))
00:35:37 * | knurd will close the meeting in 30
00:35:43 < smooge> | I think I will go over the EPEL pages and see what needs
to be updated
00:35:46 < smooge> | Oh one second
00:35:49 < smooge> | mirrors
00:36:17 * | knurd waits
00:36:24 < smooge> | I think once we are pushing things regularly and getting
more packages.. it would be a good idea to start recruuitiong more mirrors
00:36:34 < smooge> | s/once/now/
00:36:53 < nirik> | sure, always good... how many do we have now?
00:36:54 < smooge> | how does this usually happen (and am I going over
something that is already said?)
00:36:56 * | nirik goes to look.
00:37:00 < knurd> | http://mirrors.fedoraproject.org/publiclist/EPEL/
00:37:15 < knurd> | there are a few, but more can't hurt
00:37:24 < knurd> | I'm not on the mirror-list
00:37:29 < knurd> | anyone else?
00:38:10 < knurd> | asking on that closed list might be the best start for
more mirrors
00:38:19 < smooge> | I think I have a couple of things at the back of my mind.
I will try to get them out for the next meeting
00:39:12 < knurd> | smooge, thx; in case of questions with the mirror stuff
contact mdomsch; he maintains the stuff on http://mirrors.fedoraproject.org and he should
be on the mirror-admins-list
00:39:17 < smooge> | Hmm I need to get john branched. Will go finish up my
fedora project activation stuff and work on that
00:39:54 < smooge> | knurd, actually I am also on the list :). They forgot to
take me off when I left RH :)
00:40:01 < knurd> | hehe :)
00:40:09 < knurd> | anything else?
00:40:12 * | knurd will close the meeting in 30
00:40:41 * | knurd will close the meeting in 10
00:40:53 < knurd> | -- MARK -- Meeting end
00:40:53 --- | knurd has changed the topic to: Channel is used by various
Fedora groups and committees for their regular meetings | Note that meetings often get
logged | For questions about using Fedora please ask in #fedora | See
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Communicate/FedoraMeetingChannel for meeting schedule
4:07 p.m.
On Wed, 30 Jan 2008 21:23:48 +0100, Thorsten Leemhuis wrote:
00:09:26 < knurd> | so, how to move on? ask mschwendt to
install is? nirik, or do you want to handle that? you likely have the needed permissions
as well
00:09:42 --> | mdomsch (Matt_Domsch) has joined #fedora-meeting
00:10:11 < smooge> | mdomsch, has permission to. he can do anything :)
00:10:17 < nirik> | sure, I can ask him if we can just run it on the buildsys
box, or what.
00:10:27 < knurd> | nirik, k, thx
00:23:51 < nirik> | knurd: I mailed mschewnt asking about
setting his script up on the buildsys box
So, here are some public comments on that. Didn't know this was a topic
in the meeting once more.
For Extras we used to execute some nohup background jobs in the post-push
hook (near the bottom of the pushscript config file). That was the primary
way of running scripts, particularly when pushes were done almost daily.
[To push without re-running such stuff, there's option -s which also
skips the repoprune and repoview steps, btw.] In the signer's group env
one must be careful, though, and work around permission problems in some
Python generated files (e.g. urlgrabber files created by yum) if they
are shared.
Running fully automated hardly ever was a good idea because Core and
Extras were not pushed at once and could be out-of-sync. Whether to
include or exclude updates-testing was an unresolved matter, too. Later I
switched to preventing broken deps by excluding packages from needsign
with the help of the RCNeedsign.py script. That got rid of the public
summaries and only mailed packagers privately (warning about whether
needsign and/or test updates were included).
To run the code as a cron job somebody first needs to spend some time and
determine under which circumstances it would run into error conditions.
Such as metadata loading problems (also adding the lockfile check for the
Plague needsign repodata lock), and then try to catch all errors. Otherwise
there would be the risk that it spams packagers with wrong reports.
Mission objective: also check yum api's error return codes.
I haven't done that extra work because of the Core+Extras+Test Updates
split (see above) and because it has never been agreed on how often to
mail broken deps reports to owners and the list. The initial work-around
for repo I/O problems was to sleep 12 minutes when repoclosure returned an
error and retry a few times. That seemed to work for cron as well as the
background jobs. The old scripts are in fedora cvs, so copying existing
bits from them would be possible.
The old repoclosure code is integrated into the pushscript and the
RCNeedsign.py module -- [That's the one that installs the pkgs from the
needsign queue into temporary repos to allow for proper
ExcludeArch/ExclusiveArch handling prior to running repoclosure on
that. Originally I wanted to test adding multilib support to it but didn't
continue when koji+bodhi appeared on the radar.]
The additional Extras repoclosure scripts on the buildsys machine are a
bit specific to Extras. Not all constants are fetched from the Config_*.py
files. E.g. the script needed to distinguish between Core and Extras (it's
a similar thing for for CentOS-or-RHEL and EPEL) through a repoid keyword,
hardcoded in the rc-report.py script. Which package owners list to read
was hardcoded, too. A few other features were added without any way to
configure them (e.g. the history support that printed the age in days of a
broken dep or the function that only sends a summary to the list if there
are new reports). The used Yum is a private copy with the
checkForObsoletes patch applied.
The recently published repoclosure tarball is easier to modify. It doesn't
depend on the pushscript code or config files. It takes an ordinary
yum.conf file as input. It can be configured with Fedora Account System
account details for package owner db access outside fedora infrastructure.
All it needs is Yum post 2.6.1 with checkForObsolete.
Whether and how often to run a script like that, whether or not to include
"testing" or needsign (*without* multilib, ExcludeArch, Exclusive}Arch),
whether to run against CentOS or the private RHEL repos, I don't want to
decide. I would appreciate if somebody else took over. Sometimes people,
who have a fixed package in updates-testing already, complain about a
broken deps report that doesn't cover updates-testing. On the other hand,
some people complain if a report covers updates-testing. Furthermore,
there are packagers who believe every report to be false. The only fun of
doing repoclosure stuff is to see those people who understand the reports
and fix their packages silently as soon as they receive a report.
8:37 a.m.
New subject: dep checker script (was: Re: Log from todays (20080130) EPEL SIG Meeting)
On 30.01.2008 23:07, Michael Schwendt wrote:
On Wed, 30 Jan 2008 21:23:48 +0100, Thorsten Leemhuis wrote:
> 00:09:26 < knurd> | so, how to move on? ask mschwendt to install is?
nirik, or do you want to handle that? you likely have the needed permissions as well
> 00:09:42 --> | mdomsch (Matt_Domsch) has joined #fedora-meeting
> 00:10:11 < smooge> | mdomsch, has permission to. he can do anything :)
> 00:10:17 < nirik> | sure, I can ask him if we can just run it on the
buildsys box, or what.
> 00:10:27 < knurd> | nirik, k, thx
> 00:23:51 < nirik> | knurd: I mailed mschewnt asking about setting his
script up on the buildsys box
So, here are some public comments on that.
thx for your detailed mail Michael. It helps a lot!
Didn't know this was a topic in the meeting once more.
Well, a solution still hasn't be found and we need a dep checking
script. We could reenable the old one, but it doesn't mail the list, and
that's needed as some fellow packagers ignore ^w miss the mails they get
directly.
[...]
The recently published repoclosure tarball is easier to modify. It doesn't
depend on the pushscript code or config files. It takes an ordinary
yum.conf file as input. It can be configured with Fedora Account System
account details for package owner db access outside fedora infrastructure.
All it needs is Yum post 2.6.1 with checkForObsolete.
That sounds to me like the way forward. mmcgrath, nirik, do we have a
new-enough yum for it?
Whether
We IMHO really need a dep checker script.
and how often to run a script like that,
How long does it take to run? I'd say if it doesn't consume to many
resources it'd say at least two, better three times a week. Once a week
is the minimum I'd say.
whether or not to include
"testing"
For EPEL we afaics need to run it one without testing and once with.
Only then we notice if a dep is broken in stable and only then people
will tell the signers to push a new build to stable quickly to fix the
issue properly.
or needsign
Not sure. I don't think that's worth the trouble.
(*without* multilib, ExcludeArch, Exclusive}Arch),
Multilib-checks likely need to be done.
whether to run against CentOS or the private RHEL repos
I'd prefer the private RHEL repos if that's possible without to much
trouble. CentOS would be fine as well, but there are small differences
(no PPC (yet) for example; small delay with updates, new releases)
, I don't want to decide.
I'd finding the answers should be that hard. I'd even say we should be
able to do this quickly here on the list.
I would appreciate if somebody else took over.
mmcgrath, nirik?
[...]
Cu
knurd
11:52 a.m.
New subject: dep checker script (was: Re: Log from todays (20080130) EPEL SIG Meeting)
On Feb 3, 2008 7:37 AM, Thorsten Leemhuis <fedora(a)leemhuis.info> wrote:
> whether to run against CentOS or the private RHEL repos
I'd prefer the private RHEL repos if that's possible without to much
trouble. CentOS would be fine as well, but there are small differences
(no PPC (yet) for example; small delay with updates, new releases)
Well how many people have PPC :)?
Actually I was going to look at testing against both. This allows us
to catch items where CentOS has something and RHEL doesn't.. and if
something conflicts with the CentOS 'extras' repo so that problems can
be managed correctly.
--
Stephen J Smoogen. -- CSIRT/Linux System Administrator
How far that little candle throws his beams! So shines a good deed
in a naughty world. = Shakespeare. "The Merchant of Venice"
12:10 p.m.
New subject: dep checker script
On 03.02.2008 18:52, Stephen John Smoogen wrote:
On Feb 3, 2008 7:37 AM, Thorsten Leemhuis
<fedora(a)leemhuis.info> wrote:
>> whether to run against CentOS or the private RHEL repos
> I'd prefer the private RHEL repos if that's possible without to much
> trouble. CentOS would be fine as well, but there are small differences
> (no PPC (yet) for example; small delay with updates, new releases)
Well how many people have PPC :)?
No idea :)
Actually I was going to look at testing against both.
Yeah, might be a good idea.
This allows us
to catch items where CentOS has something and RHEL doesn't..
Well, no offense, but that's afaics would be a bug in CentOS, as they
aim to be compatible.
and if
something conflicts with the CentOS 'extras' repo so that problems can
be managed correctly.
Good idea.
But on the other hand: the repotag wars were now nearly a year ago and
one of the bad guys (/me) leaves soon. Maybe we could somehow come over
it and make peace with the CentOS guys and work together in a better way
that works better for both sides? That was my and afaics everybody's
else plan when we started EPEL, but didn't happen due some
mis-communication and misunderstandings (that's the short story and I
blame myself for a few of those issues that lead to the current
situation) in the initial EPEL start phase.
CU
knurd
12:42 p.m.
New subject: dep checker script
Thorsten Leemhuis wrote:
On 03.02.2008 18:52, Stephen John Smoogen wrote:
> On Feb 3, 2008 7:37 AM, Thorsten Leemhuis <fedora(a)leemhuis.info> wrote:
>
>>> whether to run against CentOS or the private RHEL repos
>> I'd prefer the private RHEL repos if that's possible without to much
>> trouble. CentOS would be fine as well, but there are small differences
>> (no PPC (yet) for example; small delay with updates, new releases)
> Well how many people have PPC :)?
No idea :)
> Actually I was going to look at testing against both.
Yeah, might be a good idea.
> This allows us
> to catch items where CentOS has something and RHEL doesn't..
Well, no offense, but that's afaics would be a bug in CentOS, as they
aim to be compatible.
Uhm no. Red Hat does not always ship various -devel and some other
packages when a package was built. CentOS also has made sure that you
get everything that would have come from a package so that you could use
it to do other development. This was a big problem in 2/3 and a bit in
4. I think 5 may not have had this issue.
> and if
> something conflicts with the CentOS 'extras' repo so that problems can
> be managed correctly.
Good idea.
But on the other hand: the repotag wars were now nearly a year ago and
one of the bad guys (/me) leaves soon. Maybe we could somehow come over
it and make peace with the CentOS guys and work together in a better way
that works better for both sides? That was my and afaics everybody's
else plan when we started EPEL, but didn't happen due some
mis-communication and misunderstandings (that's the short story and I
blame myself for a few of those issues that lead to the current
situation) in the initial EPEL start phase.
That is my hope. I can't say that it will happen, but I will work
towards it.
1:23 p.m.
New subject: dep checker script
On 03.02.2008 19:42, Stephen Smoogen wrote:
Thorsten Leemhuis wrote:
> On 03.02.2008 18:52, Stephen John Smoogen wrote:
>> On Feb 3, 2008 7:37 AM, Thorsten Leemhuis <fedora(a)leemhuis.info> wrote:
>> This allows us
>> to catch items where CentOS has something and RHEL doesn't..
> Well, no offense, but that's afaics would be a bug in CentOS, as they
> aim to be compatible.
Uhm no. Red Hat does not always ship various -devel and some other
packages when a package was built. CentOS also has made sure that you
get everything that would have come from a package so that you could use
it to do other development. This was a big problem in 2/3 and a bit in
4. I think 5 may not have had this issue.
Ahh, k, didn't know that. Thx for letting me/us know.
>> and if
>> something conflicts with the CentOS 'extras' repo so that problems can
>> be managed correctly.
> Good idea.
>
> But on the other hand: the repotag wars were now nearly a year ago and
> one of the bad guys (/me) leaves soon. Maybe we could somehow come over
> it and make peace with the CentOS guys and work together in a better way
> that works better for both sides? That was my and afaics everybody's
> else plan when we started EPEL, but didn't happen due some
> mis-communication and misunderstandings (that's the short story and I
> blame myself for a few of those issues that lead to the current
> situation) in the initial EPEL start phase.
That is my hope. I can't say that it will happen, but I will work
towards it.
I actually some weeks ago looked once what's in CentOS extras that's not
yet in EPEL. The xfce desktop environment is still missing in EPEL, but
nirik is planing to build it iirc (the CentOS extras package are
rebuilds of the Fedora packages). Mono is also not completely in EPEL,
but Xavier has started with it iirc.
Note that if EPEL really wants to be suitable for both RHEL and CentOS
without causing to many broken deps problems EPEL need to invent some
tricks (two repos?) in the long run afaics, as sometimes stuff hits RHEL
a bit earlier then CentOS. That has consequences for CentOS&EPEL users
if a EPEL packages depends on the new stuff; the quarterly updates (does
anybody have a better name for them; they are not quarterly...) are the
big (only?) problem area here afaics.
CU
knurd
1:44 p.m.
New subject: dep checker script
Thorsten Leemhuis wrote:
On 03.02.2008 19:42, Stephen Smoogen wrote:
> Thorsten Leemhuis wrote:
>> On 03.02.2008 18:52, Stephen John Smoogen wrote:
>>> On Feb 3, 2008 7:37 AM, Thorsten Leemhuis <fedora(a)leemhuis.info>
wrote:
>>> This allows us
>>> to catch items where CentOS has something and RHEL doesn't..
>> Well, no offense, but that's afaics would be a bug in CentOS, as they
>> aim to be compatible.
> Uhm no. Red Hat does not always ship various -devel and some other
> packages when a package was built. CentOS also has made sure that you
> get everything that would have come from a package so that you could use
> it to do other development. This was a big problem in 2/3 and a bit in
> 4. I think 5 may not have had this issue.
Ahh, k, didn't know that. Thx for letting me/us know.
I think it was brought a couple of times a loooong time ago.. but its
been over a year since I remember.
>>> and if
>>> something conflicts with the CentOS 'extras' repo so that problems
can
>>> be managed correctly.
>> Good idea.
>>
>> But on the other hand: the repotag wars were now nearly a year ago and
>> one of the bad guys (/me) leaves soon. Maybe we could somehow come over
>> it and make peace with the CentOS guys and work together in a better way
>> that works better for both sides? That was my and afaics everybody's
>> else plan when we started EPEL, but didn't happen due some
>> mis-communication and misunderstandings (that's the short story and I
>> blame myself for a few of those issues that lead to the current
>> situation) in the initial EPEL start phase.
> That is my hope. I can't say that it will happen, but I will work
> towards it.
I could have added some words to that line. I meant it as:
It is my hope that EPEL/CentOS communities will be able to work better
together as there are more CentOS boxes than RHEL boxes. I can't say
that it will happen, but I will at least make sure that our differences
are easier for people to know about.
I actually some weeks ago looked once what's in CentOS extras
that's not
yet in EPEL. The xfce desktop environment is still missing in EPEL, but
nirik is planing to build it iirc (the CentOS extras package are
rebuilds of the Fedora packages). Mono is also not completely in EPEL,
but Xavier has started with it iirc.
Note that if EPEL really wants to be suitable for both RHEL and CentOS
without causing to many broken deps problems EPEL need to invent some
tricks (two repos?) in the long run afaics, as sometimes stuff hits RHEL
a bit earlier then CentOS. That has consequences for CentOS&EPEL users
if a EPEL packages depends on the new stuff; the quarterly updates (does
anybody have a better name for them; they are not quarterly...) are the
big (only?) problem area here afaics.
"When they get to them" updates. Black Someday is what I know two places
have called it when they start getting pages that various desktops
started auto-updating and the network is full.
1:39 p.m.
New subject: dep checker script (was: Re: Log from todays (20080130) EPEL SIG Meeting)
Sorry for the delay here... finally getting around to some backlogged
emails. ;(
On Sun, 03 Feb 2008 15:37:47 +0100
fedora(a)leemhuis.info (Thorsten Leemhuis) wrote:
On 30.01.2008 23:07, Michael Schwendt wrote:
> On Wed, 30 Jan 2008 21:23:48 +0100, Thorsten Leemhuis wrote:
>
>> 00:09:26 < knurd> | so, how to move on? ask mschwendt to
>> install is? nirik, or do you want to handle that? you likely have
>> the needed permissions as well 00:09:42 --> | mdomsch
>> (Matt_Domsch) has joined #fedora-meeting 00:10:11 < smooge>
>> | mdomsch, has permission to. he can do anything :) 00:10:17
>> < nirik> | sure, I can ask him if we can just run it on the
>> buildsys box, or what. 00:10:27 < knurd> | nirik, k, thx
>> 00:23:51 < nirik> | knurd: I mailed mschewnt asking about
>> setting his script up on the buildsys box
>
> So, here are some public comments on that.
thx for your detailed mail Michael. It helps a lot!
> Didn't know this was a topic in the meeting once more.
Well, a solution still hasn't be found and we need a dep checking
script. We could reenable the old one, but it doesn't mail the list,
and that's needed as some fellow packagers ignore ^w miss the mails
they get directly.
> [...]
> The recently published repoclosure tarball is easier to modify. It
> doesn't depend on the pushscript code or config files. It takes an
> ordinary yum.conf file as input. It can be configured with Fedora
> Account System account details for package owner db access outside
> fedora infrastructure. All it needs is Yum post 2.6.1 with
> checkForObsolete.
That sounds to me like the way forward. mmcgrath, nirik, do we have a
new-enough yum for it?
On the buildsys? no. 2.6.0 is there.
> Whether
We IMHO really need a dep checker script.
Yes. Agreed.
> and how often to run a script like that,
How long does it take to run? I'd say if it doesn't consume to many
resources it'd say at least two, better three times a week. Once a
week is the minimum I'd say.
Looks like it takes about 5min here.
I would say once a week is enough... unless the broken deps are in
stable, then instead of running it more, I think we just go and try and
fix them or contact the maintainer via email/irc/phone to fix them.
> whether or not to include
> "testing"
For EPEL we afaics need to run it one without testing and once with.
Only then we notice if a dep is broken in stable and only then people
will tell the signers to push a new build to stable quickly to fix the
issue properly.
Sure, but hopefully the stable run is empty usually.
> or needsign
Not sure. I don't think that's worth the trouble.
Yeah, me either.
> (*without* multilib, ExcludeArch, Exclusive}Arch),
Multilib-checks likely need to be done.
Yeah.
> whether to run against CentOS or the private RHEL repos
I'd prefer the private RHEL repos if that's possible without to much
trouble. CentOS would be fine as well, but there are small differences
(no PPC (yet) for example; small delay with updates, new releases)
Well, it's not easy to do that from what I can see.
The buildsys doesn't have a new enough yum, and none of my machines
here have access to RHEL repos. I can easily run it against centos...
>, I don't want to decide.
I'd finding the answers should be that hard. I'd even say we should be
able to do this quickly here on the list.
> I would appreciate if somebody else took over.
mmcgrath, nirik?
I can run it from here against centos.
Will post the results to the list, and if they look good for everyone,
can enable it to mail maintainers. Does that sound good?
Cu
knurd
kevin
2:42 p.m.
New subject: dep checker script (was: Re: Log from todays (20080130) EPEL SIG Meeting)
On Fri, 15 Feb 2008 12:39:24 -0700, Kevin Fenzi wrote:
> That sounds to me like the way forward. mmcgrath, nirik, do we
have a
> new-enough yum for it?
On the buildsys? no. 2.6.0 is there.
A newer one is in /srv/extras-push/work/buildsys-utils/pushscript,
which is a cvs working-copy directory.
You can uncomment the
sys.path.insert(0,'/srv/extras-push/work/buildsys-utils/pushscript')
at the beginning of the repoclosure script to use it on the
buildsys machine.
5:43 a.m.
New subject: dep checker script
On 15.02.2008 20:39, Kevin Fenzi wrote:
On Sun, 03 Feb 2008 15:37:47 +0100
fedora(a)leemhuis.info (Thorsten Leemhuis) wrote:
> On 30.01.2008 23:07, Michael Schwendt wrote:
>> On Wed, 30 Jan 2008 21:23:48 +0100, Thorsten Leemhuis wrote:
>> and how often to run a script like that,
> How long does it take to run? I'd say if it doesn't consume to many
> resources it'd say at least two, better three times a week. Once a
> week is the minimum I'd say.
Looks like it takes about 5min here.
I would say once a week is enough... unless the broken deps are in
stable, then instead of running it more, I think we just go and try and
fix them or contact the maintainer via email/irc/phone to fix them.
If it really takes only a few minutes to run I'd much prefer to run it
right after every push -- that way packagers normally will get a
feedback closely after they realized a change.
If we do it only once a week the worst case might be around 11 days (7
days between runs + 4 days from needsign to repo) between doing a change
on foo and getting a mail that "foo broke the world". That's to long IMHO.
>> whether or not to include
>> "testing"
> For EPEL we afaics need to run it one without testing and once with.
> Only then we notice if a dep is broken in stable and only then people
> will tell the signers to push a new build to stable quickly to fix the
> issue properly.
Sure, but hopefully the stable run is empty usually.
And if not we quickly should do something. Even in testing there are to
many broken deps. :-/
CU
knurd
10:47 a.m.
New subject: dep checker script
On Sat, 16 Feb 2008 12:43:45 +0100
fedora(a)leemhuis.info (Thorsten Leemhuis) wrote:
On 15.02.2008 20:39, Kevin Fenzi wrote:
> On Sun, 03 Feb 2008 15:37:47 +0100
> fedora(a)leemhuis.info (Thorsten Leemhuis) wrote:
>> On 30.01.2008 23:07, Michael Schwendt wrote:
>>> On Wed, 30 Jan 2008 21:23:48 +0100, Thorsten Leemhuis wrote:
>>> and how often to run a script like that,
>> How long does it take to run? I'd say if it doesn't consume to many
>> resources it'd say at least two, better three times a week. Once a
>> week is the minimum I'd say.
> Looks like it takes about 5min here.
> I would say once a week is enough... unless the broken deps are in
> stable, then instead of running it more, I think we just go and try
> and fix them or contact the maintainer via email/irc/phone to fix
> them.
If it really takes only a few minutes to run I'd much prefer to run it
right after every push -- that way packagers normally will get a
feedback closely after they realized a change.
Well, or if we are going to do that, we could add in the needsign queue
and run it before a push? Or just do that and make it a policy to never
push a package with broken deps?
If we do it only once a week the worst case might be around 11 days
(7
days between runs + 4 days from needsign to repo) between doing a
change on foo and getting a mail that "foo broke the world". That's
to long IMHO.
Sure, I guess...
>>> whether or not to include
>>> "testing"
>> For EPEL we afaics need to run it one without testing and once
>> with. Only then we notice if a dep is broken in stable and only
>> then people will tell the signers to push a new build to stable
>> quickly to fix the issue properly.
> Sure, but hopefully the stable run is empty usually.
And if not we quickly should do something. Even in testing there are
to many broken deps. :-/
Agreed. So, perhaps we should talk about just making it a policy to
never push a package with broken deps, and remove the ones that are
currently in testing with broken deps.
CU
knurd
kevin
5898
days inactive
5924
days old
epel-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
13 comments
5 participants
participants (5)
-
Kevin Fenzi -
Michael Schwendt -
Rahul Sundaram -
Stephen John Smoogen -
Thorsten Leemhuis