On Thu, Dec 09, 2010 at 08:42:50PM +0200, Vahis wrote:

On 12/09/2010 08:01 PM, Greg KH wrote:

...

Hi all,

The openSUSE:Tumbleweed repo is now up and has exactly one package that will install properly, git. :)

Jiri is working on getting the kernel packages building properly, and I'm looking at linking to network:samba:STABLE as that's a good place to get the latest stable samba packages.

But, what I need from you all, is a request for what packages do you feel I should be updating right now, and hopefully you can provide a pointer to the repo for where these packages are (if they are only in FACTORY, that's fine as well.)

I've been dreaming long of a LAMP server that can be kept updated without EVER being stopped.

So I would vote for the packages in LAMP pattern.

All of them? Ok, what repo should they be pulled from? It looks like we need apache, php5 and postgresql, right? thanks, greg k-h -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-factory+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-factory+help@opensuse.org

On Fri, Dec 10, 2010 at 06:12:06AM +0200, Vahis wrote:

On 12/09/2010 09:09 PM, Greg KH wrote:

...

On Thu, Dec 09, 2010 at 08:42:50PM +0200, Vahis wrote:

...

On 12/09/2010 08:01 PM, Greg KH wrote:

...

Hi all,

The openSUSE:Tumbleweed repo is now up and has exactly one package that will install properly, git. :)

Jiri is working on getting the kernel packages building properly, and I'm looking at linking to network:samba:STABLE as that's a good place to get the latest stable samba packages.

But, what I need from you all, is a request for what packages do you feel I should be updating right now, and hopefully you can provide a pointer to the repo for where these packages are (if they are only in FACTORY, that's fine as well.)

I've been dreaming long of a LAMP server that can be kept updated without EVER being stopped.

So I would vote for the packages in LAMP pattern.

All of them? Ok, what repo should they be pulled from?

I can't really answer the repo question. I'm stupid enoufg to just make a wish...

It looks like

...

we need apache, php5 and postgresql, right?

I've always used MySQL

Great, but mysql is only a "suggested" part of the lamp pattern in openSUSE. I'll ask around where these packages reside... thanks, greg k-h -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-factory+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-factory+help@opensuse.org

On Thu, Dec 09, 2010 at 11:09:49AM -0800, Greg KH wrote:

On Thu, Dec 09, 2010 at 08:42:50PM +0200, Vahis wrote:

...

On 12/09/2010 08:01 PM, Greg KH wrote:

...

Hi all,

The openSUSE:Tumbleweed repo is now up and has exactly one package that will install properly, git. :)

Jiri is working on getting the kernel packages building properly, and I'm looking at linking to network:samba:STABLE as that's a good place to get the latest stable samba packages.

But, what I need from you all, is a request for what packages do you feel I should be updating right now, and hopefully you can provide a pointer to the repo for where these packages are (if they are only in FACTORY, that's fine as well.)

I've been dreaming long of a LAMP server that can be kept updated without EVER being stopped.

So I would vote for the packages in LAMP pattern.

All of them? Ok, what repo should they be pulled from? It looks like we need apache, php5 and postgresql, right?

Apache is now linked in from the "Apache" repository. Any ideas where I should get php5 and postgresql? thanks, greg k-h -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-factory+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-factory+help@opensuse.org

On 12/10/2010 01:02 PM, phanisvara das wrote:

On Fri, 10 Dec 2010 00:12:50 +0530, Vahis wrote:

...

I've been dreaming long of a LAMP server that can be kept updated without EVER being stopped. So I would vote for the packages in LAMP pattern.

which version of the LAMP packages would you want to be included? the basic packages are already in the standard repos (OSS). the latest versions of apache2, mysql, postgresql can be found under /repositories/server:/.

i'm not running a production LAMP server, but use it for development to be deployed on a webhost. therefore i need the same versions that are used on that webhost, and often these are earlier than those included in OSS. a while ago i had to compile PHP from source therefore, which isn't a huge problem, but a nuisance.

from my point of view, different versions of apache2, php, etc., would be useful to choose from. what's your use case?

I just run my home web server. I try to keep my system as default as possible to avoid updating problems, so I install basically from OSS. I do other basic stuff on this single machine so I need some stuff from NON OSS and Packman, too, but all the server software is from the default repos. I also run a few guest OS:s on VirtualBox on this machine Current repos are just those mentioned. I would just like to have a "continuously rolling" up-to-date server with no need to big upgrading steps. In my dreams the kernel is also updated on-the-fly, without booting, I just dream of once "installing it and then forgetting about it" -- Vahis -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-factory+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-factory+help@opensuse.org

On Thu, Dec 09, 2010 at 07:44:20PM +0100, Stephan Kleine wrote:

On Thursday December 9 2010 19:01:58 Greg KH wrote:

...

Hi all,

The openSUSE:Tumbleweed repo is now up and has exactly one package that will install properly, git. :)

Jiri is working on getting the kernel packages building properly, and I'm looking at linking to network:samba:STABLE as that's a good place to get the latest stable samba packages.

But, what I need from you all, is a request for what packages do you feel I should be updating right now, and hopefully you can provide a pointer to the repo for where these packages are (if they are only in FACTORY, that's fine as well.)

Also, if any maintainers of packages wish to also maintain them in the tumbleweed repo, that's fine with me as well, just let me know your opensuse id.

If you are comfortable with linking to another repo (I don't want to maintain the stuff in 2 different places) feel free to link in my OpenVAS stuff from security:OpenVAS:STABLE:v3 (libnet & libgdchart-gd2 isn't needed for suse).

That's exactly what I would like to do. I'll link to the latest version, and when you update, could you ping me to update to a newer one? thanks, greg k-h -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-factory+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-factory+help@opensuse.org

On Thu, Dec 09, 2010 at 09:02:05PM +0100, Stephan Kleine wrote:

On Thursday December 9 2010 20:10:59 Greg KH wrote:

...

On Thu, Dec 09, 2010 at 07:44:20PM +0100, Stephan Kleine wrote:

...

On Thursday December 9 2010 19:01:58 Greg KH wrote:

...

Hi all,

The openSUSE:Tumbleweed repo is now up and has exactly one package that will install properly, git. :)

Jiri is working on getting the kernel packages building properly, and I'm looking at linking to network:samba:STABLE as that's a good place to get the latest stable samba packages.

But, what I need from you all, is a request for what packages do you feel I should be updating right now, and hopefully you can provide a pointer to the repo for where these packages are (if they are only in FACTORY, that's fine as well.)

Also, if any maintainers of packages wish to also maintain them in the tumbleweed repo, that's fine with me as well, just let me know your opensuse id.

If you are comfortable with linking to another repo (I don't want to maintain the stuff in 2 different places) feel free to link in my OpenVAS stuff from security:OpenVAS:STABLE:v3 (libnet & libgdchart-gd2 isn't needed for suse).

That's exactly what I would like to do. I'll link to the latest version, and when you update, could you ping me to update to a newer one?

Not sure if I get you right. Fixing the links to point to a certain version isn't necessary, IMHO, cause this repo will contain only versions upstream considers stable so a simply link without version fix should do it. Once their v4 got released I will ping you and ask you to change the links to the security:OpenVAS:STABLE:v4 repo.

So you move whole repos for new "stable" versions, from v3 to v4? Shouldn't you just do this with normal version updates instead? Anyway, yes, that is fine, I'll link the packages to the v3 repo. Do you want me to pick up all of the packages there, or some subset? thanks, greg k-h -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-factory+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-factory+help@opensuse.org

On Thu, Dec 09, 2010 at 07:56:27PM +0100, Stefan Seyfried wrote:

On Thu, 9 Dec 2010 10:01:58 -0800 Greg KH wrote:

...

But, what I need from you all, is a request for what packages do you feel I should be updating right now, and hopefully you can provide a pointer to the repo for where these packages are (if they are only in FACTORY, that's fine as well.)

Something that's usually worth updating is BlueZ, as the upstream code quality is usually very high with very little regressions, but one or the other nice fix and new feature coming along all the time.

What repo and packages should I rely on stable packages for BlueZ to be based on?

I would volunteer to maintain this for tumbleweed also, which probably would consist of doing a submitrequest maybe a week after it was pushed to FACTORY without reports.

Wonderful, I'll gladly accept submitreqs from Factory for packages like this, feel free to send them my way.

(btw, announcing tumbleweed also on FACTORY would have probably been a good idea - i mean it *is* FACTORY on barbiturates ;)

Heh, I like that image, thanks for it. thanks, greg k-h -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-factory+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-factory+help@opensuse.org

On Tue, Dec 14, 2010 at 09:13:32AM +0100, Stefan Seyfried wrote:

On Mon, 13 Dec 2010 15:34:39 -0800 Greg KH wrote:

...

On Thu, Dec 09, 2010 at 07:56:27PM +0100, Stefan Seyfried wrote:

...

On Thu, 9 Dec 2010 10:01:58 -0800 Greg KH wrote:

...

But, what I need from you all, is a request for what packages do you feel I should be updating right now, and hopefully you can provide a pointer to the repo for where these packages are (if they are only in FACTORY, that's fine as well.)

Something that's usually worth updating is BlueZ, as the upstream code quality is usually very high with very little regressions, but one or the other nice fix and new feature coming along all the time.

What repo and packages should I rely on stable packages for BlueZ to be based on?

FACTORY or Base:System (I test them in home:seife:testing, if it "works" in the way of "does not instantly segfault", I'll push them to Base:System and, depending on what changed etc. a bit later to FACTORY). If it's in FACTORY for a week or longer, it's probably good for Tumbleweed.

But the easiest would be to wait for my submitrequest instead of linking to any repo.

Yes, that is the easiest, and I've now done this.

...

...

I would volunteer to maintain this for tumbleweed also, which probably would consist of doing a submitrequest maybe a week after it was pushed to FACTORY without reports.

Wonderful, I'll gladly accept submitreqs from Factory for packages like this, feel free to send them my way.

I did the sr 55896 for bluez-4.81, you'll need to linkpac bluez to bluez-gstreamer in oS:Tumbleweed (with no revision etc, they should always be the same).

Care to give me the exact 'osc linkpac' command line to run to achieve this so I don't mess it up like I messed up the kernel packages? :) thanks, greg k-h -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-factory+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-factory+help@opensuse.org

On Tue, Dec 14, 2010 at 09:21:52PM +0100, Stefan Seyfried wrote:

On Tue, 14 Dec 2010 09:44:06 -0800 Greg KH wrote:

...

On Tue, Dec 14, 2010 at 09:13:32AM +0100, Stefan Seyfried wrote:

...

I did the sr 55896 for bluez-4.81, you'll need to linkpac bluez to bluez-gstreamer in oS:Tumbleweed (with no revision etc, they should always be the same).

Care to give me the exact 'osc linkpac' command line to run to achieve this so I don't mess it up like I messed up the kernel packages? :)

If I only knew ;-) The link in home:seife:testing (which is my own mini-devel-repo) was probably created simply with

osc linkpac home:seife:testing bluez home:seife:testing bluez-gstreamer

simply because I cannot remember having used any options to "osc linkpac" ever. But it's been a while (created 2009-08-25 07:42:52) and osc options might have changed since then.

The link file in FACTORY looks like this:

seife@susi:~> osc cat openSUSE:Factory bluez-gstreamer _link <link package="bluez" cicount="copy" />

I also in the past did simply edit _link files and commit it. That always worked for me, better than trying to remember the osc option of the day ;)

Ok, I have the cicount="copy" in the link now, all should be good. thanks, greg k-h -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-factory+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-factory+help@opensuse.org

On Thu, Dec 09, 2010 at 10:00:48PM +0100, Cristian Morales Vega wrote:

2010/12/9 Greg KH :

...

Hi all,

The openSUSE:Tumbleweed repo is now up and has exactly one package that will install properly, git.  :)

Jiri is working on getting the kernel packages building properly, and I'm looking at linking to network:samba:STABLE as that's a good place to get the latest stable samba packages.

But, what I need from you all, is a request for what packages do you feel I should be updating right now, and hopefully you can provide a pointer to the repo for where these packages are (if they are only in FACTORY, that's fine as well.)

Also, if any maintainers of packages wish to also maintain them in the tumbleweed repo, that's fine with me as well, just let me know your opensuse id.

mkvtoolnix could be linked directly from Factory. I never package development versions, but it is still safer to take it from there than from multimedia:apps (and the delay is minimum).

Ok, now linked up.

If tumbleweed is supposed to be a self contained repo then libebml and libmatroska should be also linked. Don't expect a new version... in this life, but still it would make more sense to take it from Factory instead of multimedia:libs.

Ok, I've added those two as well, thanks as they were needed to properly build mkvtoolnix. thanks, greg k-h -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-factory+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-factory+help@opensuse.org

Hello, I have to offer package autokey. It can be found in 11.1 to factory and in home:snowman1967 Regards, Roelof ----------------------------------------

From: remur@gmx.net To: opensuse-factory@opensuse.org Subject: Re: [opensuse-factory] Tumbleweed request for packages Date: Fri, 10 Dec 2010 08:23:05 +0100

Heya,

I am not sure I fully got how the project is supposed to start, but afais it currently is designed to be used on top of a 11.3 system where it will try replacing components as they are linked/uploaded into Tumbleweed. With the kernel beeing changed I am wondering about low level system libraries, for example a new glibc (yeah that's pretty low level) might very well require a whole system rebuild, but the 11.3 stuff that's not linked in won't be rebuild. So if one updated component would need an abi breaking library update every dependency needs a rebuild so they'd be needed in Tumbleweed, how are you planning for that if some teams aren't really interested in helping out but you need their software?

Still a very interesting project, kudos for starting it!

Cheers, Karsten

Am Donnerstag, 9. Dezember 2010, 19:01:58 schrieb Greg KH:

...

Hi all,

The openSUSE:Tumbleweed repo is now up and has exactly one package that will install properly, git. :)

Jiri is working on getting the kernel packages building properly, and I'm looking at linking to network:samba:STABLE as that's a good place to get the latest stable samba packages.

But, what I need from you all, is a request for what packages do you feel I should be updating right now, and hopefully you can provide a pointer to the repo for where these packages are (if they are only in FACTORY, that's fine as well.)

Also, if any maintainers of packages wish to also maintain them in the tumbleweed repo, that's fine with me as well, just let me know your opensuse id.

thanks,

greg k-h

-- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-factory+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-factory+help@opensuse.org -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-factory+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-factory+help@opensuse.org

On Fri, Dec 10, 2010 at 08:23:05AM +0100, Karsten König wrote:

Heya,

I am not sure I fully got how the project is supposed to start, but afais it currently is designed to be used on top of a 11.3 system where it will try replacing components as they are linked/uploaded into Tumbleweed.

Yes.

With the kernel beeing changed I am wondering about low level system libraries,

The kernel should not affect any low level system library. In fact, to prove that, install the kernel from openSUSE:Tumbleweed right now and watch everything "just work" properly.

for example a new glibc (yeah that's pretty low level) might very well require a whole system rebuild,

Installing a new glibc does not require a system rebuild. Experience with Debian and Gentoo for many years is proof of that.

but the 11.3 stuff that's not linked in won't be rebuild. So if one updated component would need an abi breaking library update every dependency needs a rebuild so they'd be needed in Tumbleweed,

I can see sometimes needing to rebuild a number of other packages due to some package changes, but those will be pretty infrequent, possibly in sync with the main openSUSE releases, which would make a lot of sense, right?

how are you planning for that if some teams aren't really interested in helping out but you need their software?

We will cross that bridge when we come to it. Worse case, I just link to their latest packages and we wing it :) thanks, greg k-h -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-factory+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-factory+help@opensuse.org

On Fri, Dec 10, 2010 at 09:57:44AM +0100, Vincent Untz wrote:

Hi Greg,

Le jeudi 09 décembre 2010, à 10:01 -0800, Greg KH a écrit :

...

Hi all,

The openSUSE:Tumbleweed repo is now up and has exactly one package that will install properly, git. :)

Jiri is working on getting the kernel packages building properly, and I'm looking at linking to network:samba:STABLE as that's a good place to get the latest stable samba packages.

But, what I need from you all, is a request for what packages do you feel I should be updating right now, and hopefully you can provide a pointer to the repo for where these packages are (if they are only in FACTORY, that's fine as well.)

Can you elaborate on how Tumbleweed is managed? As far as I can see, you're making links to other projects (and, eek, git is a link to a home project -- that's something that should be avoided, imho: never link to home projects).

Why not? I trust the home project to have the proper version of that package. Would you like it better if somehow I just link to the Factory version instead? I trust the home project more as I know it builds and works properly on the 11.3 base, not just Factory.

My understanding was that you wanted to use a model like the Factory one, where we push things to Tumbleweed when they are ready. But with links, that works a bit differently: (assuming we add some apps stuff from GNOME:Apps) when we update a package in GNOME:Apps, there's no hard guarantee it will work. We try to make that guarantee when we push from GNOME:Apps to Factory. I thought it'd be the same for Tumbleweed, but if it works with links, there's no way to make that guarantee.

Why not, these are just "links" of a copy type, not a link that instantly propagates. i.e. I'm linking to a specific revision of the package, which should be fine, right?

In all cases, you can add all of GNOME:STABLE:2.32, I guess. If you use links, though, we will have to remember to change the links for a new GNOME version (since we'll likely use GNOME:STABLE:3.0 for the next version, etc.)

What do you think the proper management model for Tumbleweed would be to make your life as a package mantainer easier? In the end, I want to make it easiest for you, not me as a project manager. thanks, greg k-h -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-factory+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-factory+help@opensuse.org

On Tue, Dec 14, 2010 at 09:37:34AM +0100, Vincent Untz wrote:

Le lundi 13 décembre 2010, à 15:23 -0800, Greg KH a écrit :

...

On Fri, Dec 10, 2010 at 09:57:44AM +0100, Vincent Untz wrote:

...

Hi Greg,

Le jeudi 09 décembre 2010, à 10:01 -0800, Greg KH a écrit :

...

Hi all,

The openSUSE:Tumbleweed repo is now up and has exactly one package that will install properly, git. :)

Jiri is working on getting the kernel packages building properly, and I'm looking at linking to network:samba:STABLE as that's a good place to get the latest stable samba packages.

But, what I need from you all, is a request for what packages do you feel I should be updating right now, and hopefully you can provide a pointer to the repo for where these packages are (if they are only in FACTORY, that's fine as well.)

Can you elaborate on how Tumbleweed is managed? As far as I can see, you're making links to other projects (and, eek, git is a link to a home project -- that's something that should be avoided, imho: never link to home projects).

Why not? I trust the home project to have the proper version of that package. Would you like it better if somehow I just link to the Factory version instead? I trust the home project more as I know it builds and works properly on the 11.3 base, not just Factory.

You trust this specific home project because you know the person behind it. Will you trust other home projects if you don't know the people? Will other people trust this specific home project if they don't know the maintainer?

The question is really: do we want to trust all users on the build service?

No I do not, and yes, you are right, I am taking the package from Takashi because I trust him. Development is always a web of trust, that's how we as humans operate.

...

...

My understanding was that you wanted to use a model like the Factory one, where we push things to Tumbleweed when they are ready. But with links, that works a bit differently: (assuming we add some apps stuff from GNOME:Apps) when we update a package in GNOME:Apps, there's no hard guarantee it will work. We try to make that guarantee when we push from GNOME:Apps to Factory. I thought it'd be the same for Tumbleweed, but if it works with links, there's no way to make that guarantee.

Why not, these are just "links" of a copy type, not a link that instantly propagates.

i.e. I'm linking to a specific revision of the package, which should be fine, right?

Except that if the package you link to is deleted, it breaks. If the package moves somewhere else, it breaks. If someone decides to just force-rebranch the package (because it's easier than to revert some broken changes), it breaks.

Then we shouldn't like to packages that are likely to be deleted :) I would prefer to just accept submitrequests, but I know that some developers are a bit too busy for this so for that, I'm doing a link to handle the work for them.

...

...

In all cases, you can add all of GNOME:STABLE:2.32, I guess. If you use links, though, we will have to remember to change the links for a new GNOME version (since we'll likely use GNOME:STABLE:3.0 for the next version, etc.)

What do you think the proper management model for Tumbleweed would be to make your life as a package mantainer easier? In the end, I want to make it easiest for you, not me as a project manager.

For me? I'd just want it to be managed exactly like Factory :-) I submit changes when they are ready, they get accepted every once in a while. If we don't have a team to review those submissions, I could even just auto-accept my submissions. But at least, this way, I don't have to use two different processes for my two targets (Factory and Tumbleweed).

Wonderful, I would like to handle it this way as well. Care to send me a submitrequest for GNOME:STABLE:2.32 to be added to Tumbleweed? thanks, greg k-h -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-factory+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-factory+help@opensuse.org

On Fri, Dec 10, 2010 at 10:55:51AM +0100, Dominique Leuenberger a.k.a DimStar wrote:

Quoting Greg KH :

...

Hi all,

But, what I need from you all, is a request for what packages do you feel I should be updating right now, and hopefully you can provide a pointer to the repo for where these packages are (if they are only in FACTORY, that's fine as well.)

Hi Greg & All,

From the GNOME side, I'd assume that GNOME:STABLE:2.32 is what you probably want to link at the moment. This repo is kept up-to-date with the 2.32.x releases.

A bunch of applications from G:A might be interesting, but there the rule of 'stable' is less strict. Generally the apps there follow the release cycle. Some are packaged from the unstable branches.

The question here is also if you want to have continuous rebuilds in a repository added by users. Or if you want to make specific points in time where upgrades happen. Ciao, Marcus -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-factory+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-factory+help@opensuse.org

On Fri, 10 Dec 2010 12:30:01 +0100 Stefan Dirsch wrote:

...

a week ago or so these packages broke X for a day until they were fixed again,

Yeah, that were the submit requests with this clever idea to export only supposedly private symbols.

Nobody was blaming you, Stefan. (this time. The last time, around openSUSE conf, I was) ;-) But even though I am also using X11:XOrg repos on my FACTORY machine, I'd definitely not recommend to put them directly into tumbleweed. For X11:XOrg, there should really be a conscious discussion by a maintainer that "this is the version I'll push into tumbleweed". IMHO. Maybe if it matured in FACTORY for some time or something like that. -- Stefan Seyfried "Any ideas, John?" "Well, surrounding them's out." -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-factory+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-factory+help@opensuse.org

On Fri, 10 Dec 2010 18:04:30 +0530, Stefan Dirsch wrote:

I agree on that. The issue is that meanwhile X11:XOrg depends on a recent kernel version, i.e. 2.6.36 or better 2.6.37rc5. At least for KMS drivers, which are the majority meanwhile (intel, radeon, nouveau).Not sure whether there are plans for recent kernel versions intumbleweed.

for the last several months i've been using kernels from Kernel:/HEAD and found them extremely stable. in spite of the often heard argument that they're unstable & under rapid development, i refuse to go back to the OSS kernel, since, specially combined with X11:XOrg, it's a significant performance improvement -- for what i'm doing. there may be other applications that have problems with the latest kernels and/or X11, of course. i'm not sure if i'm getting the idea for/behind tumbleweed, but i imagine that Kernel:/HEAD & X11:XOrg (smapshot) would be appreciated by many who want to leave the security of the stable repo behind for better performance / features. -- phani. -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-factory+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-factory+help@opensuse.org

On Mon, Dec 13, 2010 at 03:37:43PM -0800, Greg KH wrote:

On Fri, Dec 10, 2010 at 08:07:02PM +0530, phanisvara das wrote:

...

On Fri, 10 Dec 2010 18:04:30 +0530, Stefan Dirsch wrote:

...

I agree on that. The issue is that meanwhile X11:XOrg depends on a recent kernel version, i.e. 2.6.36 or better 2.6.37rc5. At least for KMS drivers, which are the majority meanwhile (intel, radeon, nouveau).Not sure whether there are plans for recent kernel versions intumbleweed.

for the last several months i've been using kernels from Kernel:/HEAD and found them extremely stable. in spite of the often heard argument that they're unstable & under rapid development, i refuse to go back to the OSS kernel, since, specially combined with X11:XOrg, it's a significant performance improvement -- for what i'm doing. there may be other applications that have problems with the latest kernels and/or X11, of course.

i'm not sure if i'm getting the idea for/behind tumbleweed, but i imagine that Kernel:/HEAD & X11:XOrg (smapshot) would be appreciated by many who want to leave the security of the stable repo behind for better performance / features.

I'm using Kernel:stable instead, as that is a bit more "stable" than Kernel:HEAD at the moment.

Any pointers to a "stable" xorg repo I should be using to link from?

I guess that would be X11:XOrg, but as long as Xvnc is still missing that's not an option I'm afraid. I'll let you know once I have something which I consider useful. Probably not before January 2011. Best regards, Stefan Public Key available ------------------------------------------------------ Stefan Dirsch (Res. & Dev.) SUSE LINUX Products GmbH Tel: 0911-740 53 0 Maxfeldstraße 5 FAX: 0911-740 53 479 D-90409 Nürnberg http://www.suse.de Germany ----------------------------------------------------------------- SUSE LINUX Products GmbH, GF: Markus Rex, HRB 16746 (AG Nürnberg) ----------------------------------------------------------------- -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-factory+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-factory+help@opensuse.org

On Tue, Dec 14, 2010 at 07:45:58PM -0800, Greg KH wrote:

On Tue, Dec 14, 2010 at 05:01:00AM +0100, Stefan Dirsch wrote:

...

On Mon, Dec 13, 2010 at 03:37:43PM -0800, Greg KH wrote:

...

On Fri, Dec 10, 2010 at 08:07:02PM +0530, phanisvara das wrote:

...

On Fri, 10 Dec 2010 18:04:30 +0530, Stefan Dirsch wrote:

...

I agree on that. The issue is that meanwhile X11:XOrg depends on a recent kernel version, i.e. 2.6.36 or better 2.6.37rc5. At least for KMS drivers, which are the majority meanwhile (intel, radeon, nouveau).Not sure whether there are plans for recent kernel versions intumbleweed.

for the last several months i've been using kernels from Kernel:/HEAD and found them extremely stable. in spite of the often heard argument that they're unstable & under rapid development, i refuse to go back to the OSS kernel, since, specially combined with X11:XOrg, it's a significant performance improvement -- for what i'm doing. there may be other applications that have problems with the latest kernels and/or X11, of course.

i'm not sure if i'm getting the idea for/behind tumbleweed, but i imagine that Kernel:/HEAD & X11:XOrg (smapshot) would be appreciated by many who want to leave the security of the stable repo behind for better performance / features.

I'm using Kernel:stable instead, as that is a bit more "stable" than Kernel:HEAD at the moment.

Any pointers to a "stable" xorg repo I should be using to link from?

I guess that would be X11:XOrg, but as long as Xvnc is still missing that's not an option I'm afraid. I'll let you know once I have something which I consider useful. Probably not before January 2011.

Ok, feel free to do a submitreq to the openSUSE:Tumbleweed project when you think it is ready.

Hmm. I thought you wanted to work with versioned links? Thanks, Stefan Public Key available ------------------------------------------------------ Stefan Dirsch (Res. & Dev.) SUSE LINUX Products GmbH Tel: 0911-740 53 0 Maxfeldstraße 5 FAX: 0911-740 53 479 D-90409 Nürnberg http://www.suse.de Germany ----------------------------------------------------------------- SUSE LINUX Products GmbH, GF: Markus Rex, HRB 16746 (AG Nürnberg) ----------------------------------------------------------------- -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-factory+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-factory+help@opensuse.org

On Fri, 10 Dec 2010 17:13:33 +0530, Stefan Seyfried wrote:

For X11:XOrg, there should really be a conscious discussion by a maintainer that "this is the version I'll push into tumbleweed". IMHO.

Maybe if it matured in FACTORY for some time or something like that.

that's what i meant: somebody has to decide: this is (relatively) stable, this can be used. something like tumbleweed, at least as i understand it, can't be fully automatic. -- phani. -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-factory+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-factory+help@opensuse.org

On Sun, Dec 12, 2010 at 12:50:08AM +0100, Philipp Thomas wrote:

On Fri, 10 Dec 2010 12:30:01 +0100, Stefan Dirsch wrote:

...

with this clever idea to export only supposedly private symbols.

What is wrong with using symbol visibility to hide library internal symbols? The error was to not examine closely whether those symbols are only used internally. It's too bad we don't have a testbed like the beta distribution in former times where you could do such thim´ngs and see what breaks.

You can do all this in your own repository if you want to. Just link all interesting packages you want to test in, and do your changes. Ciao, Marcus -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-factory+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-factory+help@opensuse.org

On Sun, Dec 12, 2010 at 12:51:51PM +0100, Philipp Thomas wrote:

On Sun, 12 Dec 2010 02:36:29 +0100, Marcus Meissner wrote:

...

Just link all interesting packages you want to test in, and do your changes.

Which for X libs would mean a huge number of links. Very practical indeed.

And breaking other's repos is any better? During the day the repo was broken I received 3 bugreports and various personal emails about this breakage. It costs me a day and without the friendly help of my collegue Jiri Slaby it would have taken much longer to fix the issue. CU, Stefan Public Key available ------------------------------------------------------ Stefan Dirsch (Res. & Dev.) SUSE LINUX Products GmbH Tel: 0911-740 53 0 Maxfeldstraße 5 FAX: 0911-740 53 479 D-90409 Nürnberg http://www.suse.de Germany ----------------------------------------------------------------- SUSE LINUX Products GmbH, GF: Markus Rex, HRB 16746 (AG Nürnberg) ----------------------------------------------------------------- -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-factory+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-factory+help@opensuse.org

On Sun, Dec 12, 2010 at 02:04:04PM +0100, Cristian Morales Vega wrote:

2010/12/12 Stefan Dirsch :

...

On Sun, Dec 12, 2010 at 12:51:51PM +0100, Philipp Thomas wrote:

...

On Sun, 12 Dec 2010 02:36:29 +0100, Marcus Meissner wrote:

...

Just link all interesting packages you want to test in, and do your changes.

Which for X libs would mean a huge number of links. Very practical indeed.

And breaking other's repos is any better? During the day the repo was broken I received 3 bugreports and various personal emails about this breakage. It costs me a day and without the friendly help of my collegue Jiri Slaby it would have taken much longer to fix the issue.

First notice I have about this. But without knowing how much test the patch received before SR and how difficult it was to find a package that required the internal symbols, I would argue X11:XOrg is a repo people should expect can break from time to time, and this kind of "tests" should be allowed.

And let the repo's maintainer suffer from that? I disagree.

But the important thing is why it took you a full day, with help, to fix it. Revert a patch should be trivial... but there is no easier way than "osc co -r <latest-1>; osc ci", true?

Of course the first approach was to only revert the changes package wise one-by-one. In the end for each package the changes needed to be reverted. Due to the huge dependancy chain in X11:Xorg together with our slow build service this took a whole day. Best regards, Stefan Public Key available ------------------------------------------------------ Stefan Dirsch (Res. & Dev.) SUSE LINUX Products GmbH Tel: 0911-740 53 0 Maxfeldstraße 5 FAX: 0911-740 53 479 D-90409 Nürnberg http://www.suse.de Germany ----------------------------------------------------------------- SUSE LINUX Products GmbH, GF: Markus Rex, HRB 16746 (AG Nürnberg) ----------------------------------------------------------------- -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-factory+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-factory+help@opensuse.org

On Sun, Dec 12, 2010 at 12:12 PM, Philipp Thomas wrote:

On Sun, 12 Dec 2010 13:18:20 +0100, Stefan Dirsch wrote:

...

And breaking other's repos is any better?

Where did I say that? I still think that given the BS turnaround times it would be better to have a testbed repo where things can be dropped in to be tested.

I fully agree with you that such changes should be well tested before being allowed into an official repo.

Philipp

I haven't followed the full issue here, but I hope / assume that there will be a Tumbleweed testing repo before this is process is fully baked. Packages get submitted there first. If they work well for a week or two, then they go to the real tumbleweed repo. Conceivably Factory could serve that purpose, but often factory has already progressed past what is being considered for tumbleweed. (ie. The tumbleweed kernel is currently 2.6.36, but factory is 2.6.37-rc, so in the long run, 2.6.36 should be tested in tumbleweed-testing for a while before being pushed to tumbleweed. I assume the same will true for X, KDE, Gnome, etc. They will need a way to do integration testing with tumbleweed before tumbleweed gets upgraded. fyi: If all this works out, it seems tumbleweed would be source of 1full distro releases (starting with 11.5) and thus release freezes, etc. could happen there. Then factory could have a lot of the freezes, etc. removed. I think that too would make a lot of developers happy. Greg -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-factory+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-factory+help@opensuse.org

Le dimanche 12 décembre 2010, à 19:19 +0100, Lars Müller a écrit :

On Sun, Dec 12, 2010 at 12:35:18PM -0500, Greg Freemyer wrote:

...

I haven't followed the full issue here, but I hope / assume that there will be a Tumbleweed testing repo before this is process is fully baked. Packages get submitted there first. If they work well for a week or two, then they go to the real tumbleweed repo.

The team maintaining a project at the OBS has to care about this. Every project member has to be aware of the potential risk.

Why not using Factory to address your concerns?

Because it doesn't address the need for various packages? If Factory tracks version 1.3.x (development version of 1.4.x) of foo and Tumbleweed tracks version 1.2.x (stable version), that just doesn't work. Vincent -- Les gens heureux ne sont pas pressés. -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-factory+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-factory+help@opensuse.org

Le lundi 13 décembre 2010, à 15:36 -0800, Greg KH a écrit :

On Mon, Dec 13, 2010 at 08:30:28AM +0100, Vincent Untz wrote:

...

Le dimanche 12 décembre 2010, à 19:19 +0100, Lars Müller a écrit :

...

On Sun, Dec 12, 2010 at 12:35:18PM -0500, Greg Freemyer wrote:

...

I haven't followed the full issue here, but I hope / assume that there will be a Tumbleweed testing repo before this is process is fully baked. Packages get submitted there first. If they work well for a week or two, then they go to the real tumbleweed repo.

The team maintaining a project at the OBS has to care about this. Every project member has to be aware of the potential risk.

Why not using Factory to address your concerns?

Because it doesn't address the need for various packages? If Factory tracks version 1.3.x (development version of 1.4.x) of foo and Tumbleweed tracks version 1.2.x (stable version), that just doesn't work.

Yes it will. When 1.4.x becomes stable, Tumbleweed will update to that and you will be happy.

Let me clarify the issue: Tumbleweed has 1.2.0, Factory (openSUSE:Factory and the devel project for the package) has 1.3.5, and I want to push 1.2.1 to Tumbleweed. How do you do that? Vincent -- Les gens heureux ne sont pas pressés. -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-factory+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-factory+help@opensuse.org

On Sun, Dec 12, 2010 at 07:19:49PM +0100, Lars Müller wrote:

On Sun, Dec 12, 2010 at 12:35:18PM -0500, Greg Freemyer wrote:

...

On Sun, Dec 12, 2010 at 12:12 PM, Philipp Thomas wrote:

...

On Sun, 12 Dec 2010 13:18:20 +0100, Stefan Dirsch wrote:

...

And breaking other's repos is any better?

Where did I say that? I still think that given the BS turnaround times it would be better to have a testbed repo where things can be dropped in to be tested.

I fully agree with you that such changes should be well tested before being allowed into an official repo.

I haven't followed the full issue here, but I hope / assume that there will be a Tumbleweed testing repo before this is process is fully baked.

No, no, no. Please keep this process simple. All of us are willing to drive Tumbleweed _while_ we need to kept focused.

At the time we created network:samba:STABLE and TESTING we had a long discussion regarding if we need network:samba:3_2, n:s:3_3, n:s:3_4 and so on. And I always argued: keep it simple. Less repositories are better and focus the testing. Using an additional repositories from the openSUSE Build Service (OBS) is already hard enough for the majority of our users.

Short messager: less repositories are better.

I agree. And in this vein, I've linked from network:samba:STABLE into openSUSE:Tumbleweed now, and the packages are working great, thanks. I'm building some semi-automated tools to monitor changes in "parent" repos so I should catch it if you update the packages in this repo, but if I miss them, and you want me to update them, just let me know. thanks, greg k-h -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-factory+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-factory+help@opensuse.org

Am Sonntag, 12. Dezember 2010 schrieb Philipp Thomas:

On Fri, 10 Dec 2010 12:30:01 +0100, Stefan Dirsch

wrote:

...

with this clever idea to export only supposedly private symbols.

What is wrong with using symbol visibility to hide library internal symbols? The error was to not examine closely whether those symbols are only used internally. It's too bad we don't have a testbed like the beta distribution in former times where you could do such thim´ngs and see what breaks.

Sorry? it broke in X11:Xorg - what more do you need? Beside that we have openSUSE:Factory:Staging - but it takes the wish to test things ;( Greetings, Stephan -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-factory+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-factory+help@opensuse.org

On Tue, Dec 14, 2010 at 07:04:23AM +0100, Wolfgang Rosenauer wrote:

Am 09.12.2010 19:01, schrieb Greg KH:

...

But, what I need from you all, is a request for what packages do you feel I should be updating right now, and hopefully you can provide a pointer to the repo for where these packages are (if they are only in FACTORY, that's fine as well.)

Naturally I would request the stuff from the mozilla repo to be linked in. But I cannot actually. The reason is that I'm not publishing all the time from there for example if I prepare security updates which are not final and only get released at CRD. So those packages would "leak" from the tumbleweed repository. (And I'm not sure yet if I want to have another copy of the packages lingering around in OBS.)

Any suggestions?

Care to just send me a submitrequest for the mozilla packages when you feel they are "stable"? Would that be difficult for you to handle in your workflow? thanks, greg k-h -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-factory+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-factory+help@opensuse.org

On Tue, Dec 14, 2010 at 07:13:39PM +0100, Wolfgang Rosenauer wrote:

Am 14.12.2010 18:48, schrieb Greg KH:

...

On Tue, Dec 14, 2010 at 07:04:23AM +0100, Wolfgang Rosenauer wrote:

...

Naturally I would request the stuff from the mozilla repo to be linked in. But I cannot actually. The reason is that I'm not publishing all the time from there for example if I prepare security updates which are not final and only get released at CRD. So those packages would "leak" from the tumbleweed repository. (And I'm not sure yet if I want to have another copy of the packages lingering around in OBS.)

Any suggestions?

Care to just send me a submitrequest for the mozilla packages when you feel they are "stable"? Would that be difficult for you to handle in your workflow?

Not difficult but it adds more to my own confusion where different packages are spread in OBS (mozilla, mozilla:beta, mozilla:alpha, mozilla:experimental, mozilla:Factory, mozilla:maintained, (mozilla:nightly what is going away though) and now tumbleweed) ;-)

But then again one more is probably not an issue.

I think you all need to work on a sane workflow as this seems quite crazy :) Good luck, greg k-h -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-factory+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-factory+help@opensuse.org

On Tue, Dec 14, 2010 at 02:37:36PM -0500, Greg Freemyer wrote:

Greg, how many GIT kernel repositories do you work with?

On a daily basis? Somewhere around 6-12 with multiple branches in each.

I follow ext4 most closely and I believe there are 3 ext4 devel repos maintained by Ted Ts'o at a minimum for public conception, plus wherever he does his own development.

Then there are the 3 or more main git kernel repos.

There are? I only know of 1, Linus's, that is considered the "main" kernel git repo.

And then there are the likely dozens of git repos where contributors work on ext4 features.

It doesn't seem all that different from OBS to me.

I don't think it's a apples-to-apples comparison at all, but hey, what do I know :) thanks, greg k-h -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-factory+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-factory+help@opensuse.org