On 17.03.2017 11:39, Roger Whittaker wrote:

On Fri, Mar 17, 2017 at 11:22:52AM +0100, Jan Engelhardt wrote:

...

The mass submits of Haskell into openSUSE:Factory are worrying.

[...]

Wouldn't it be better if we just had a single haskell-platform package? (It seems we have a haskell_platform pattern that installs a bunch of packages.)

That is the base and noone argues about that part. But e.g. https://build.opensuse.org/request/show/480564 Greetings, Stephan -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-factory+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse-factory+owner@opensuse.org

On 17.03.2017 11:55, Roger Whittaker wrote:

On Fri, Mar 17, 2017 at 11:51:38AM +0100, Stephan Kulow wrote:

...

On 17.03.2017 11:39, Roger Whittaker wrote:

...

On Fri, Mar 17, 2017 at 11:22:52AM +0100, Jan Engelhardt wrote:

...

The mass submits of Haskell into openSUSE:Factory are worrying.

[...]

Wouldn't it be better if we just had a single haskell-platform package? (It seems we have a haskell_platform pattern that installs a bunch of packages.)

That is the base and noone argues about that part. But e.g. https://build.opensuse.org/request/show/480564

OK - but my point was more that on other distributions it seems there's a single package - see:

https://www.haskell.org/platform/

We're missing from that list because we do it differently.

I don't think that's the reason. Because sudo zypper in patterns-openSUSE-haskell_platform will do what sudo apt-get install haskell-platform does - just differently So I assume there are other reasons why it's not listed, i.e. noone asked? Greetings, Stephan -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-factory+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse-factory+owner@opensuse.org

On Fri, Mar 17, 2017 at 01:15:32PM +0100, Peter Simons wrote:

Hi Roger,

...

On other distributions it seems there's a single package - see:

https://www.haskell.org/platform/

We're missing from that list because we do it differently.

you seem to be confusing the Haskell Platform with the LTS Haskell package set [1]. devel:languages:haskell [2] (and the subset of it that's already in Factory and elsewhere) is based on LTS Haskell 8.x. We don't distribute the Haskell Platform.

[1] https://www.stackage.org/ [2] https://build.opensuse.org/project/show/devel:languages:haskell

In that case I certainly am confused, but possibly others are as well, because there is a pattern called patterns-openSUSE-haskell_platform. -- ============================ Roger Whittaker roger@disruptive.org.uk https://notes.smuvelious.org ============================ -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-factory+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse-factory+owner@opensuse.org

On Friday 2017-03-17 13:51, Martin Pluskal wrote:

On Fri, 2017-03-17 at 11:22 +0100, Jan Engelhardt wrote:

Well we live (or most of us) in free countries, so feel free to worry about whatever you like ...

I do see benefits in having LTS Haskell in Factory (and Backports as well) - so big thanks to everybody involved.

Oh well if it's *just* LTS and not the entire {equivalent of CPAN for Haskell}, that's reassuring. But it's hard to tell the difference :-D -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-factory+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse-factory+owner@opensuse.org

On Fri, 2017-03-17 at 13:51 +0100, Martin Pluskal wrote:

Well we live (or most of us) in free countries, so feel free to worry about whatever you like ...

Jan being part of the review team is very well in a position to worry about 600 submissions incoming at the same moment.

I do see benefits in having LTS Haskell in Factory (and Backports as well) - so big thanks to everybody involved.

Well, let me shout out a big THANK YOU to Jan in this case who REVIEWS a huge bunch of those submissions! As he is personally involved in those 600+ submissions, he is very well in a position to doubt if this actually makes sense. And looking at the number of regular build failures of ghc/haskell stuff in openSUSE:Factory, I can't but underline the fact that this is not ready for prime-time use. So, the same question as Jan already asked: can we trim this down to the stuff that is ACTUALLY useful and not just the entire code dumps? cheers, Dominique -- Dimstar / Dominique Leuenberger

On 17.03.2017 15:01, Martin Pluskal wrote:

On Fri, 2017-03-17 at 14:21 +0100, Dimstar / Dominique Leuenberger wrote:

...

On Fri, 2017-03-17 at 13:51 +0100, Martin Pluskal wrote:

...

Well we live (or most of us) in free countries, so feel free to worry about whatever you like ...

...

Jan being part of the review team is very well in a position to worry about 600 submissions incoming at the same moment.

...

...

I do see benefits in having LTS Haskell in Factory (and Backports as well) - so big thanks to everybody involved.

...

Well, let me shout out a big THANK YOU to Jan in this case who REVIEWS a huge bunch of those submissions! That is of course much appreciated and I would also like to thank Jan.

...

As he is personally involved in those 600+ submissions, he is very well in a position to doubt if this actually makes sense. What would be however much welcomed here, when raising such issue/starting discussion if it was a bit more technical and less emotional.

Apart from that comparing LTS Hackell to CPAN is strongly misleading as it is highly unlikely that obscure bit-rotten packages would end up there - and as far as I know no longer needed packages are being dropped once they loose their purpose.

Cheers

Martin

Btw my understanding is that bigger issue than haskell packages is actually size/activity/throughput of openSUSE review team - maybe it would be better to address this ... Cheers Martin

On 17.03.2017 19:16, Stephan Kulow wrote:

Am 17.03.2017 um 18:47 schrieb Martin Pluskal:

...

Btw my understanding is that bigger issue than haskell packages is actually size/activity/throughput of openSUSE review team - maybe it would be better to address this ...

Make a proposal how! Well call for volunteers would be a good starting point.

Cheers Martin

On 17.03.2017 19:55, Dimstar / Dominique Leuenberger wrote:

On Fri, 2017-03-17 at 18:47 +0100, Martin Pluskal wrote:

...

Btw my understanding is that bigger issue than haskell packages is actually size/activity/throughput of openSUSE review team - maybe it would be better to address this ...

Applications for the review-team has been open since ever and still is. What we do expect though is that a person applying for the review team is quite well versed when it comes to RPM packaging. Ah that's good to know - frankly speaking I was not aware of it - most recent information about openSUSE review team that google gave me is [1] which is apparently outdated.

Cheers M 1. https://news.opensuse.org/2013/08/28/help-wanted-opensuse-review-team/

On Sat, 2017-03-18 at 14:09 +0100, Peter Simons wrote:

Hi Dominique,

 > Looking at the number of regular build failures of ghc/haskell stuff  > in openSUSE:Factory, I can't but underline the fact that this is not  > ready for prime-time use.   ghc-app-settings:                     450595   ghc-cabal-helper:                     462021   ghc-concurrent-output:                461615   ghc-hackage-security:                 477448   ghc-hmatrix-gsl:                      479844   ghc-hmatrix-gsl-stats:                479845   ghc-hoauth2:                          461636   ghc-hse-cpp:                          479409   ghc-hspec-core                        477449   ghc-hspec-meta:                       479846   ghc-insert-ordered-containers:        477454   ghc-path-io:                          450613   ghc-pipes-http:                       450615   ghc-Spock:                            477442   ghc-streaming-bytestring:             454904   ghc-wai-middleware-static:            477469   ghc-wreq:                             462022

Please note that most of those fixes are absolutely trivial version updates, but despite this fact some of them haven't been merged into Factory for well over 2 months. For example:

  http://build.opensuse.org/request/show/450613   http://build.opensuse.org/request/show/450615

I'm so very tempted to say 'blub' - oh wait, I just did. The submissions you mention have been in adi:189 for 2 month -as you point out rightly. And about 2 months ago (what a coincidence), there was a comment added to the project (which triggers a mail to the people having submissions in the staging project), stating: wrote about 2 months ago     Build failed ghc-scientific (x86_64)     Build failed ghc-scotty (x86_64)     Build failed ghc-vector-algorithms (x86_64)     Build failed ghc-distributive (x86_64)     Build failed ghc-quickcheck-instances (x86_64)     Build failed ghc-smoothie (x86_64)* and more (37) ... Looking into adi:189 )https://build.opensuse.org/project/show/openSUSE: Factory:Staging:adi:189) we currently see 42 submissions grouped in there: of which an estimated 100% fail to build. Might be worthy to look into the failures as well and work out why they happen. Once THIS is fixed, the stuff can also be merged. Cheers, Dominique

On 18 March 2017 at 18:42, Dimstar / Dominique Leuenberger wrote:

On Sat, 2017-03-18 at 14:09 +0100, Peter Simons wrote:

...

Hi Dominique,

...

Looking at the number of regular build failures of ghc/haskell stuff in openSUSE:Factory, I can't but underline the fact that this is not ready for prime-time use. ghc-app-settings: 450595 ghc-cabal-helper: 462021 ghc-concurrent-output: 461615 ghc-hackage-security: 477448 ghc-hmatrix-gsl: 479844 ghc-hmatrix-gsl-stats: 479845 ghc-hoauth2: 461636 ghc-hse-cpp: 479409 ghc-hspec-core 477449 ghc-hspec-meta: 479846 ghc-insert-ordered-containers: 477454 ghc-path-io: 450613 ghc-pipes-http: 450615 ghc-Spock: 477442 ghc-streaming-bytestring: 454904 ghc-wai-middleware-static: 477469 ghc-wreq: 462022

Please note that most of those fixes are absolutely trivial version updates, but despite this fact some of them haven't been merged into Factory for well over 2 months. For example:

http://build.opensuse.org/request/show/450613 http://build.opensuse.org/request/show/450615

I'm so very tempted to say 'blub' - oh wait, I just did.

The submissions you mention have been in adi:189 for 2 month -as you point out rightly.

And about 2 months ago (what a coincidence), there was a comment added to the project (which triggers a mail to the people having submissions in the staging project), stating:

wrote about 2 months ago

Build failed ghc-scientific (x86_64) Build failed ghc-scotty (x86_64) Build failed ghc-vector-algorithms (x86_64) Build failed ghc-distributive (x86_64) Build failed ghc-quickcheck-instances (x86_64) Build failed ghc-smoothie (x86_64)* and more (37) ...

Looking into adi:189 )https://build.opensuse.org/project/show/openSUSE: Factory:Staging:adi:189) we currently see 42 submissions grouped in there: of which an estimated 100% fail to build.

Might be worthy to look into the failures as well and work out why they happen.

Once THIS is fixed, the stuff can also be merged.

Cheers, Dominique

FWIW I think it's quite a good thing the factory review team do not check in broken packages.. -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-factory+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse-factory+owner@opensuse.org

On Fri, Mar 17, 2017 at 10:49 AM, Peter Simons wrote:

Hi Jan,

...

Submitting devel:languages:haskell (or devel:languages:perl:CPAN) unattended-ly is worrying.

devel:languages:haskell is a curated package set that's compiled and maintained specifically with the goal of providing a stable subset of Hackage (the equivalent of CPAN in the Haskell ecosystem) that's both robust, well-tested, and reliable for use in commercial products. The LTS package set on which d:l:h is based is hugely popular among Haskell developers and it is the de facto standard for developers involved in non-trivial projects. Releases of LTS Haskell undergo extensive quality controls, i.e. there are comprehensive test builds, regression test suites, a semi-automatic system for reporting issues to the respective upstream package authors, and much more. Generally speaking, the quality of most of most of those packages is amazing, and many popular software products like git-annex, yesod, etc. are built on top of that infrastructure. Having that code available in openSUSE is an extremely useful service to our users, and the availability of that infrastructure is certainly going to attract new users who would previously not consider openSUSE because it was lacking comprehensive support for LTS Haskell.

Why can't those people just add the repository, then? That is what most languages in openSUSE seem to do. They have a curated set of packages that are considered widely useful to the openSUSE community in Factory, and a repository containing more niche packages that people who need them can add if necessary.

...

I find it highly questionable to submit every possible bitrotten Hello World module on the planet that has ever been made. That is certainly what it feels like.

I understand that the sheer number of submissions must feel scary to everyone who's involved in the package review process. Please know, however, that the work you're doing is extremely valuable for openSUSE, for the Haskell community, and for the free software community as a whole. The effort we have all dedicated to distributing that software to our users has already made a huge difference, i.e. we've found literally hundreds of bugs in packages, package descriptions, licensing term declarations, etc. and those issues have been *fixed* because of the work we're doing.

But why does that work need to happen in Factory, rather than in the repository? There are currently 1,164 "ghc-*" packages in Factory, compared to 892 "python-*" packages, 357 "ruby*" packages, 1,092 "perl-*" packages, 193 php packages, 23 lua packages, and 37 "R-*" packages, despite the fact that those other languages are much more popular than haskell [1]. All of them have a repository people can add with many more packages. So it seems to me a smaller list of generally-useful packages in Factory combined with a dedicated repository for people who need it would best balance the needs of haskell users with the time constraints of Factory reviewers. [1] https://www.tiobe.com/tiobe-index/ -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-factory+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse-factory+owner@opensuse.org

On Fri, Mar 17, 2017 at 11:38 AM, Greg Freemyer wrote:

On Fri, Mar 17, 2017 at 11:24 AM, Todd Rme wrote:

...

On Fri, Mar 17, 2017 at 10:49 AM, Peter Simons wrote:

...

Hi Jan,

...

Submitting devel:languages:haskell (or devel:languages:perl:CPAN) unattended-ly is worrying.

devel:languages:haskell is a curated package set that's compiled and maintained specifically with the goal of providing a stable subset of Hackage (the equivalent of CPAN in the Haskell ecosystem) that's both robust, well-tested, and reliable for use in commercial products. The LTS package set on which d:l:h is based is hugely popular among Haskell developers and it is the de facto standard for developers involved in non-trivial projects. Releases of LTS Haskell undergo extensive quality controls, i.e. there are comprehensive test builds, regression test suites, a semi-automatic system for reporting issues to the respective upstream package authors, and much more. Generally speaking, the quality of most of most of those packages is amazing, and many popular software products like git-annex, yesod, etc. are built on top of that infrastructure. Having that code available in openSUSE is an extremely useful service to our users, and the availability of that infrastructure is certainly going to attract new users who would previously not consider openSUSE because it was lacking comprehensive support for LTS Haskell.

Why can't those people just add the repository, then? That is what most languages in openSUSE seem to do. They have a curated set of packages that are considered widely useful to the openSUSE community in Factory, and a repository containing more niche packages that people who need them can add if necessary.

I can say that with python a lot of the packages aren't in factory, but they are maintained in d:l:python.

When I try to package a python app that needs one of the packages, I just do an SR from d:l:python to factory.

I can't speak to Haskell issues, but as a person packaging python apps, I have no complaints about how the process works for python.

Yes, that was exactly my point. I am suggesting that haskell packagers follow a similar approach. -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-factory+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse-factory+owner@opensuse.org

On 18 March 2017 at 01:14, Jan Engelhardt wrote:

On Friday 2017-03-17 19:55, Tomas Chvatal wrote:

...

Jan Engelhardt píše v Pá 17. 03. 2017 v 11:22 +0100:

...

The mass submits of Haskell into openSUSE:Factory are worrying.

I have to say I am bit confused. Your post is rant, request for help, or something else entirely?

Just an impetus for discussion and solicitation of others' opinions.

Or I just wanted to speak whatever was on the my mind.

Hi Jan, Thanks for all your help reviewing, and for bringing this up, it's certainly spawning a spirited discussion. Did you discuss the concerns you have directly with the submitters first? If not, might I suggest you do so in the future. Without such private consultation first, your creation of this thread can be seen as "public shaming" and questioning the value of contributors by a senior member of the community in the review team; That probably isn't how you want yourself or the review team to be seen, I can certainly imagine that will make recruiting new blood to the review team harder.

Haskell LTS is not the first big stack to enter openSUSE. There is perl, and there is texlive, and their packaging and submission style has... some different characteristics that, judging from the echo in the room, seems to have appealed more to the release team.

Are these guidelines regarding submission style written down somewhere? In this thread I can see your objections but I am somewhat vague on what your proposed suggestions would be? Would you prefer a single large ghc-platform package instead of hundreds of smaller packages? Would you prefer that the submissions were stagged somehow? I can certainly see how several hundred packages in one go is obscenely troublesome for the review and release process, but I think as a member of the review team you're in a position to suggest improvements, not just question the style and packaging of contributions. Regards, Richard -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-factory+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse-factory+owner@opensuse.org