Re: Modularity Survey
by Kevin Kofler
Alex Scheel wrote:
> Look folks. This isn't a Fedora-only survey. It is a survey run by Red Hat
> members who are looking to engage with a community that includes Fedora,
> Red Hat, CentOS and a bunch of other stakeholders as well. I think we can
> all recognize that Google Apps usage is high among businesses.
That is another major concern, that decisions made by Fedora for Fedora
users depend more and more on input from people (and companies) who are NOT
Fedora users. What makes sense for RHEL and/or CentOS does not necessarily
make sense for Fedora (and for that matter, what makes sense for RHEL also
does not necessarily make sense for CentOS). Fedora decisions should depend
ONLY on the input and needs of Fedora users.
Kevin Kofler
4 years
Re: Modularity Survey
by Matthew Miller
On Sat, Apr 11, 2020 at 01:30:57PM +0200, Kevin Kofler wrote:
> That is another major concern, that decisions made by Fedora for Fedora
> users depend more and more on input from people (and companies) who are NOT
> Fedora users. What makes sense for RHEL and/or CentOS does not necessarily
> make sense for Fedora (and for that matter, what makes sense for RHEL also
> does not necessarily make sense for CentOS). Fedora decisions should depend
> ONLY on the input and needs of Fedora users.
Fedora has huge impact beyond our immediate userbase because we are the
upstream for RHEL, CentOS, and their further derivatives.
Take a look https://imgur.com/a/58OXYve. This is Fedora EPEL (which is part
of our project!), not the downstreams themselves, but shows just *one*
aspect of that impact. (It's so large that I see I need to figure out how to
tell matplotlib to not shift to e notation!)
I agree that when we make decisions in Fedora, we need to consider direct
users of the OS we make first. But we are also making a system we _want_ to
be useful as an upstream, and taking downstream needs into account is the
only way we can succeed at that.
--
Matthew Miller
<mattdm(a)fedoraproject.org>
Fedora Project Leader
Not the Pope
4 years
Re: Modularity Survey
by John M. Harris Jr
On Saturday, April 11, 2020 4:30:57 AM MST Kevin Kofler wrote:
> Alex Scheel wrote:
>
> > Look folks. This isn't a Fedora-only survey. It is a survey run by Red
> > Hat
> > members who are looking to engage with a community that includes Fedora,
> > Red Hat, CentOS and a bunch of other stakeholders as well. I think we can
> > all recognize that Google Apps usage is high among businesses.
>
>
> That is another major concern, that decisions made by Fedora for Fedora
> users depend more and more on input from people (and companies) who are NOT
> Fedora users. What makes sense for RHEL and/or CentOS does not
> necessarily make sense for Fedora (and for that matter, what makes sense
> for RHEL also does not necessarily make sense for CentOS). Fedora decisions
> should depend ONLY on the input and needs of Fedora users.
>
> Kevin Kofler
Let's be honest, this doesn't even really make sense for RHEL.
--
John M. Harris, Jr.
4 years
Re: Modularity Survey
by Nicolas Mailhot
Le lundi 13 avril 2020 à 13:34 -0400, Matthew Miller a écrit :
> On Sat, Apr 11, 2020 at 01:30:57PM +0200, Kevin Kofler wrote:
> > That is another major concern, that decisions made by Fedora for
> > Fedora
> > users depend more and more on input from people (and companies) who
> > are NOT
> > Fedora users. What makes sense for RHEL and/or CentOS does not
> > necessarily
> > make sense for Fedora (and for that matter, what makes sense for
> > RHEL also
> > does not necessarily make sense for CentOS). Fedora decisions
> > should depend
> > ONLY on the input and needs of Fedora users.
>
> Fedora has huge impact beyond our immediate userbase because we are
> the upstream for RHEL, CentOS, and their further derivatives.
>
> Take a look https://imgur.com/a/58OXYve. This is Fedora EPEL (which
> is part of our project!), not the downstreams themselves, but shows
> just *one* aspect of that impact.
Another way to see things is that Fedora has a huge impact precisely
because Fedora decicions are depening ONLY on the input and needs of
Fedora users, and Fedora users have been consistently refusing the
short-termist non future-proof self-defeating shortcuts that plague
some of Fedora’s downstreams.
Fedora takes the long view. Over a significant span of time, that
produces better results than quick hacks.
Regards,
--
Nicolas Mailhot
4 years
Re: Field3D abipkgdiff significant?
by Richard Shaw
On Tue, Apr 21, 2020 at 3:12 PM Jerry James <loganjerry(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 21, 2020 at 10:53 AM Richard Shaw <hobbes1069(a)gmail.com>
> wrote:
> > So Field3D had a patch release a while ago and I build the package for
> Rawhide but haven't decided to build for F31+ because I can't tell if the
> abi changes are significant or not and I don't want to rebuild all the
> dependencies.
> >
> > Can someone let me know if this is safe?
>
> Adding functions and variables is okay. The only concern is the 8
> changed variables. If they are not referenced by any consumers of
> Field3D, then updating is okay. I get the impression that those are
> internal variables (because they are static and have a version number
> in their names). If you can confirm that these variables are not
> referenced directly by any Field3D consumers, then go ahead and build
> the update. Otherwise, you will need to rebuild all consumers to be
> sure the update doesn't cause breakage.
>
That doesn't sound like a lot of fun, so seeing as OpenImageIO is the only
consumer on Fedora, perhaps I should just rebuild it anyway to be safe :)
$ sudo dnf repoquery --srpm --whatrequires "libField3D.so.1.7()(64bit)"
enabling rawhide-modular-source repository
enabling rawhide-source repository
Fedora - Modular Rawhide - Source
125 kB/s | 175 kB 00:01
Fedora - Rawhide - Source
3.2 MB/s | 6.7 MB 00:02
Field3D-0:1.7.3-1.fc33.src
OpenImageIO-0:2.1.13.0-2.fc33.src
Thanks,
Richard
4 years
Re: Can we distribute modular .repo files in a separate package?
by Miroslav Suchý
Dne 06. 05. 20 v 15:12 Miro Hrončok napsal(a):
> This has downsides: When the files are changed in next update, I won't get them updated, because they are shipped as
> %config(noreplace). (If they were not shipped as %config(noreplace), it would be even worse, as my changes would be
> overridden.)
It is a good habit to run
rpmconf -a
after each upgrade. Or you can install
python3-dnf-plugin-rpmconf
Because the divergence will happen anyway. For some configs.
--
Miroslav Suchy, RHCA
Red Hat, Associate Manager ABRT/Copr, #brno, #fedora-buildsys
3 years, 12 months
Re: Can we distribute modular .repo files in a separate package?
by Miro Hrončok
On 07. 05. 20 16:13, Miroslav Suchý wrote:
> Dne 06. 05. 20 v 15:12 Miro Hrončok napsal(a):
>> This has downsides: When the files are changed in next update, I won't get them updated, because they are shipped as
>> %config(noreplace). (If they were not shipped as %config(noreplace), it would be even worse, as my changes would be
>> overridden.)
> It is a good habit to run
>
> rpmconf -a
>
> after each upgrade. Or you can install
>
> python3-dnf-plugin-rpmconf
>
> Because the divergence will happen anyway. For some configs.
I know. But doesn't it makes sense to avoid this particular divergence if we
have a perfectly working way of doing it?
--
Miro Hrončok
--
Phone: +420777974800
IRC: mhroncok
3 years, 12 months
