[opensuse-buildservice] Reworking the software search, part II
Hi, thanks for your feedback regarding our mockups for the software search. We implemented a working prototype which now also contains a search form. Please check the new search at: http://software.opensuse.org/search/find and see an example app page here: http://software.opensuse.org/package/kopete Please let me know what you think of the current state. Greetings -- Thomas Schmidt (tom [at] opensuse.org) openSUSE Boosters Team "Don't Panic", Douglas Adams (11.03.1952 - 11.05.2001) -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-buildservice+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse-buildservice+owner@opensuse.org
Thomas Schmidt wrote:
thanks for your feedback regarding our mockups for the software search. We implemented a working prototype which now also contains a search form.
Please check the new search at: http://software.opensuse.org/search/find and see an example app page here: http://software.opensuse.org/package/kopete
Please let me know what you think of the current state.
Nice but the web page should make it obvious that packages from any repo other than the official distro was potentially not reviewed by anyone, make no promise whatsoever and that adding the repo might have surprising consequences. The search result for Factory doesn't actually show the package from Factory but from the devel project. I'm not sure it makes sense to have both 'release' and 'update' for packages in the Distro. Usually you want to prefer the latter, esp since the updater will suggest to install that within the next 24 hours anyways. cu Ludwig -- (o_ Ludwig Nussel //\ V_/_ http://www.suse.de/ SUSE LINUX Products GmbH, GF: Jeff Hawn, Jennifer Guild, Felix Imendörffer, HRB 16746 (AG Nürnberg) -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-buildservice+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse-buildservice+owner@opensuse.org
On 12.03.2012 17:06, Ludwig Nussel wrote:
Thomas Schmidt wrote:
thanks for your feedback regarding our mockups for the software search. We implemented a working prototype which now also contains a search form.
Please check the new search at: http://software.opensuse.org/search/find and see an example app page here: http://software.opensuse.org/package/kopete
Please let me know what you think of the current state.
Nice but the web page should make it obvious that packages from any repo other than the official distro was potentially not reviewed by anyone, make no promise whatsoever and that adding the repo might have surprising consequences.
Could you provide me a text for this? I can add this as a popup for the first time the user clicks on unsupported packages with the option to remember the warning.
The search result for Factory doesn't actually show the package from Factory but from the devel project.
This is a known limitation of the obs api, let's see if we can fix that.
I'm not sure it makes sense to have both 'release' and 'update' for packages in the Distro. Usually you want to prefer the latter, esp since the updater will suggest to install that within the next 24 hours anyways.
Right, let's merge the 'release' and 'update' line to 'official', which links the latest official version. Greetings -- Thomas Schmidt (tom [at] opensuse.org) openSUSE Boosters Team "Don't Panic", Douglas Adams (11.03.1952 - 11.05.2001) -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-buildservice+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse-buildservice+owner@opensuse.org
On Monday 12 March 2012 18:20:57 Thomas Schmidt wrote:
On 12.03.2012 17:06, Ludwig Nussel wrote:
Thomas Schmidt wrote:
thanks for your feedback regarding our mockups for the software search. We implemented a working prototype which now also contains a search form.
Please check the new search at: http://software.opensuse.org/search/find and see an example app page here: http://software.opensuse.org/package/kopete
Please let me know what you think of the current state.
Nice but the web page should make it obvious that packages from any repo other than the official distro was potentially not reviewed by anyone, make no promise whatsoever and that adding the repo might have surprising consequences.
Could you provide me a text for this? I can add this as a popup for the first time the user clicks on unsupported packages with the option to remember the warning.
First of all. I think warnings as obtrusive as that are a bad idea imho. The fact that the user has to click on 'unsupported packages' is clear enough. If the user does that, don't bother them anymore... Besides, such warnings, despite doing damage to the easy nature of the web interface, serve NO security purpose other than make us feel better. UAC anyone?
The search result for Factory doesn't actually show the package from Factory but from the devel project.
This is a known limitation of the obs api, let's see if we can fix that.
I'm not sure it makes sense to have both 'release' and 'update' for packages in the Distro. Usually you want to prefer the latter, esp since the updater will suggest to install that within the next 24 hours anyways.
Right, let's merge the 'release' and 'update' line to 'official', which links the latest official version.
I think our goal should be to empower users and expose the power of OBS (and the work the packages there do!) to them while of course protecting them/properly warning them when something goes wrong. We have three 'levels of officialness' to packages. The packages build in home are usually for testing or private use. Note that sometimes they are meant to be widely used -some upstream projects use home projects to distribute their software, see quipzilla I recently blogged about [1]. So while we should warn users of the potential unstable and even dangerous nature of home projects, it should be not too hard to get there. Maybe a way of home projects to signify their goal ("just for my testing" vs "meant for general consumption") would be useful at some point. Second level are the devel projects. Again, they can be meant for testing but often they are absolutely supposed to provide extra or more up to date software to end users. Examples are the GNOME and KDE extra and updated release repo's, the Games repo etcetera. Hiding them too much is absolutely bad: they are a major value of openSUSE. Then we have of course our official, tested, released software. IF an user is searching for something, this should always be on top. I propose to build up the UI to expose these three levels explicity, with the first two ALWAYS visible. Devel projects are a tad messy so for that we need to think of a way to expose them in a reasonable way. What to show could be something like this: Stable version [a] Testing version [b] devel project name (more testing packages) [c] (unofficial packages) [d] [a] from updates/oss. Like currently, the big download button. [b] newer version from a devel repo. For example the highest release number found in a devel project or so. Testing is actually a bit negative as some repo's aren't about testing at all, but it is a ok general term I think. [c] a link/button to get more packages from devel projects. In case there is choice... [d] link which will show home project packages This way we show what openSUSE has which other distro's don't: OBS and 31.000 people building packages there :D /Jos [1] http://blog.jospoortvliet.com/2012/03/fork-me-on-github.html
Greetings
On 24.03.2012 14:45, Jos Poortvliet wrote:
On Monday 12 March 2012 18:20:57 Thomas Schmidt wrote:
On 12.03.2012 17:06, Ludwig Nussel wrote:
Thomas Schmidt wrote:
thanks for your feedback regarding our mockups for the software search. We implemented a working prototype which now also contains a search form.
Please check the new search at: http://software.opensuse.org/search/find and see an example app page here: http://software.opensuse.org/package/kopete
Please let me know what you think of the current state.
Nice but the web page should make it obvious that packages from any repo other than the official distro was potentially not reviewed by anyone, make no promise whatsoever and that adding the repo might have surprising consequences.
Could you provide me a text for this? I can add this as a popup for the first time the user clicks on unsupported packages with the option to remember the warning.
First of all. I think warnings as obtrusive as that are a bad idea imho. The fact that the user has to click on 'unsupported packages' is clear enough. If the user does that, don't bother them anymore... Besides, such warnings, despite doing damage to the easy nature of the web interface, serve NO security purpose other than make us feel better. UAC anyone?
The search result for Factory doesn't actually show the package from Factory but from the devel project.
This is a known limitation of the obs api, let's see if we can fix that.
I'm not sure it makes sense to have both 'release' and 'update' for packages in the Distro. Usually you want to prefer the latter, esp since the updater will suggest to install that within the next 24 hours anyways.
Right, let's merge the 'release' and 'update' line to 'official', which links the latest official version.
I think our goal should be to empower users and expose the power of OBS (and the work the packages there do!) to them while of course protecting them/properly warning them when something goes wrong.
We have three 'levels of officialness' to packages. The packages build in home are usually for testing or private use. Note that sometimes they are meant to be widely used -some upstream projects use home projects to distribute their software, see quipzilla I recently blogged about [1]. So while we should warn users of the potential unstable and even dangerous nature of home projects, it should be not too hard to get there. Maybe a way of home projects to signify their goal ("just for my testing" vs "meant for general consumption") would be useful at some point.
Second level are the devel projects. Again, they can be meant for testing but often they are absolutely supposed to provide extra or more up to date software to end users. Examples are the GNOME and KDE extra and updated release repo's, the Games repo etcetera. Hiding them too much is absolutely bad: they are a major value of openSUSE.
Then we have of course our official, tested, released software. IF an user is searching for something, this should always be on top.
I propose to build up the UI to expose these three levels explicity, with the first two ALWAYS visible. Devel projects are a tad messy so for that we need to think of a way to expose them in a reasonable way.
What to show could be something like this:
Stable version [a] Testing version [b] devel project name (more testing packages) [c] (unofficial packages) [d]
It's not easy to detect the nature of a devel project. So I can't detect automatically if it's a playground or a reviewed extension to a distribution. Technically I was told that it's on the same level as home projects, because the commits don't get reviewed on checkin like it's done in the official distros and Factory. I agree it would be nice to have a line 'devel release' which provides a newer version. Greetings
[a] from updates/oss. Like currently, the big download button. [b] newer version from a devel repo. For example the highest release number found in a devel project or so. Testing is actually a bit negative as some repo's aren't about testing at all, but it is a ok general term I think. [c] a link/button to get more packages from devel projects. In case there is choice... [d] link which will show home project packages
This way we show what openSUSE has which other distro's don't: OBS and 31.000 people building packages there :D
/Jos
[1] http://blog.jospoortvliet.com/2012/03/fork-me-on-github.html
Greetings
-- Thomas Schmidt (tom [at] opensuse.org) openSUSE Boosters Team "Don't Panic", Douglas Adams (1952 - 11.05.2001) -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-buildservice+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse-buildservice+owner@opensuse.org
On Mon, Mar 26, 2012 at 08:41:52AM +0200, Thomas Schmidt wrote: [ 8< ] superfluous fullquote pruned
I think our goal should be to empower users and expose the power of OBS (and the work the packages there do!) to them while of course protecting them/properly warning them when something goes wrong.
We have three 'levels of officialness' to packages. The packages build in home are usually for testing or private use. Note that sometimes they are meant to be widely used -some upstream projects use home projects to distribute their software, see quipzilla I recently blogged about [1]. So while we should warn users of the potential unstable and even dangerous nature of home projects, it should be not too hard to get there. Maybe a way of home projects to signify their goal ("just for my testing" vs "meant for general consumption") would be useful at some point.
Second level are the devel projects. Again, they can be meant for testing but often they are absolutely supposed to provide extra or more up to date software to end users. Examples are the GNOME and KDE extra and updated release repo's, the Games repo etcetera. Hiding them too much is absolutely bad: they are a major value of openSUSE.
Then we have of course our official, tested, released software. IF an user is searching for something, this should always be on top.
I propose to build up the UI to expose these three levels explicity, with the first two ALWAYS visible. Devel projects are a tad messy so for that we need to think of a way to expose them in a reasonable way.
What to show could be something like this:
Stable version [a] Testing version [b] devel project name (more testing packages) [c] (unofficial packages) [d]
It's not easy to detect the nature of a devel project. So I can't detect automatically if it's a playground or a reviewed extension to a distribution. Technically I was told that it's on the same level as home projects, because the commits don't get reviewed on checkin like it's done in the official distros and Factory.
I agree it would be nice to have a line 'devel release' which provides a newer version.
The information must be in the OBS. I once tried to push Samba from network:samba:TESTING and Coolo rejected it as it was not from the devel project. Cheers, Lars -- Lars Müller [ˈlaː(r)z ˈmʏlɐ] Samba Team SUSE Linux, Maxfeldstraße 5, 90409 Nürnberg, Germany
On Mon, Mar 26, 2012 at 9:55 AM, Lars Müller <lmuelle@suse.de> wrote:
On Mon, Mar 26, 2012 at 08:41:52AM +0200, Thomas Schmidt wrote: [ 8< ] superfluous fullquote pruned
I think our goal should be to empower users and expose the power of OBS (and the work the packages there do!) to them while of course protecting them/properly warning them when something goes wrong.
We have three 'levels of officialness' to packages. The packages build in home are usually for testing or private use. Note that sometimes they are meant to be widely used -some upstream projects use home projects to distribute their software, see quipzilla I recently blogged about [1]. So while we should warn users of the potential unstable and even dangerous nature of home projects, it should be not too hard to get there. Maybe a way of home projects to signify their goal ("just for my testing" vs "meant for general consumption") would be useful at some point.
Second level are the devel projects. Again, they can be meant for testing but often they are absolutely supposed to provide extra or more up to date software to end users. Examples are the GNOME and KDE extra and updated release repo's, the Games repo etcetera. Hiding them too much is absolutely bad: they are a major value of openSUSE.
Then we have of course our official, tested, released software. IF an user is searching for something, this should always be on top.
I propose to build up the UI to expose these three levels explicity, with the first two ALWAYS visible. Devel projects are a tad messy so for that we need to think of a way to expose them in a reasonable way.
What to show could be something like this:
Stable version [a] Testing version [b] devel project name (more testing packages) [c] (unofficial packages) [d]
It's not easy to detect the nature of a devel project. So I can't detect automatically if it's a playground or a reviewed extension to a distribution. Technically I was told that it's on the same level as home projects, because the commits don't get reviewed on checkin like it's done in the official distros and Factory.
I agree it would be nice to have a line 'devel release' which provides a newer version.
The information must be in the OBS. I once tried to push Samba from network:samba:TESTING and Coolo rejected it as it was not from the devel project.
So Coolo knows - maybe it's just in his head :D
Cheers,
Lars -- Lars Müller [ˈlaː(r)z ˈmʏlɐ] Samba Team SUSE Linux, Maxfeldstraße 5, 90409 Nürnberg, Germany -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-buildservice+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse-buildservice+owner@opensuse.org
On Sat, Apr 07, 2012 at 06:15:38PM +0200, Jos Poortvliet wrote: [ 8< ]
So Coolo knows - maybe it's just in his head :D
https://build.openSUSE.org/stage/project/status?project=openSUSE%3AFactory&filter_devel=All+Packages&limit_to_fails=false&include_versions=false&commit=Filter+results might give the better answer. You get this link as soon as you read http://news.openSUSE.org/2011/09/27/get-your-package-in-factory-for-12-1/ Cheers, Lars -- Lars Müller [ˈlaː(r)z ˈmʏlɐ] Samba Team + SUSE Labs SUSE Linux, Maxfeldstraße 5, 90409 Nürnberg, Germany
On Saturday 07 April 2012 20:21:57 Lars Müller wrote:
On Sat, Apr 07, 2012 at 06:15:38PM +0200, Jos Poortvliet wrote: [ 8< ]
So Coolo knows - maybe it's just in his head :D
https://build.openSUSE.org/stage/project/status?project=openSUSE%3AFactory&f ilter_devel=All+Packages&limit_to_fails=false&include_versions=false&commit= Filter+results might give the better answer.
You get this link as soon as you read http://news.openSUSE.org/2011/09/27/get-your-package-in-factory-for-12-1/
Thomas, is this useful - any chance you can show versions from -devel projects not as 'unofficial' sources? And what can we do with repo's like the games repository? That's not going to get into factory, if I understand - we should expose that somehow, still...
Cheers,
Lars -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-buildservice+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse-buildservice+owner@opensuse.org
On 11.04.2012 17:28, Jos Poortvliet wrote:
On Saturday 07 April 2012 20:21:57 Lars Müller wrote:
On Sat, Apr 07, 2012 at 06:15:38PM +0200, Jos Poortvliet wrote: [ 8< ]
So Coolo knows - maybe it's just in his head :D
https://build.openSUSE.org/stage/project/status?project=openSUSE%3AFactory&f ilter_devel=All+Packages&limit_to_fails=false&include_versions=false&commit= Filter+results might give the better answer.
You get this link as soon as you read http://news.openSUSE.org/2011/09/27/get-your-package-in-factory-for-12-1/
Thomas, is this useful - any chance you can show versions from -devel projects not as 'unofficial' sources?
There was the opinion that also the devel project is unsupported, because the commits in it didn't go through a review yet. But I will add this to the TODO and we'll see if we can do that.
And what can we do with repo's like the games repository? That's not going to get into factory, if I understand - we should expose that somehow, still...
I hope that the new search and app pages appeal more maintainers to push their packages to factory so that they are listed as supported. Greetings -- Thomas Schmidt (tom [at] opensuse.org) openSUSE Boosters Team "Don't Panic", Douglas Adams (11.03.1952 - 11.05.2001) -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-buildservice+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse-buildservice+owner@opensuse.org
On Wed, Apr 11, 2012 at 11:28 AM, Jos Poortvliet <jos@opensuse.org> wrote:
And what can we do with repo's like the games repository? That's not going to get into factory,
I thought the goal was to get as much as possible into factory. Why is games special? Greg -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-buildservice+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse-buildservice+owner@opensuse.org
On Wednesday 11 April 2012 13:23:32 Greg Freemyer wrote:
On Wed, Apr 11, 2012 at 11:28 AM, Jos Poortvliet <jos@opensuse.org> wrote:
And what can we do with repo's like the games repository? That's not going to get into factory,
I thought the goal was to get as much as possible into factory. Why is games special?
It was my understanding (but someone from games will have to reply) that size and specific requirements for some games have been reasons to not get them into factory. Note that only about 1 out of every 10 games packaged in the game repo is in factory (wet-thumb-guestimation).
Greg -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-buildservice+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse-buildservice+owner@opensuse.org
On Sat, Apr 14, 2012 at 7:08 AM, Jos Poortvliet <jos@opensuse.org> wrote:
On Wednesday 11 April 2012 13:23:32 Greg Freemyer wrote:
On Wed, Apr 11, 2012 at 11:28 AM, Jos Poortvliet <jos@opensuse.org> wrote:
And what can we do with repo's like the games repository? That's not going to get into factory,
I thought the goal was to get as much as possible into factory. Why is games special?
It was my understanding (but someone from games will have to reply) that size and specific requirements for some games have been reasons to not get them into factory. Note that only about 1 out of every 10 games packaged in the game repo is in factory (wet-thumb-guestimation).
I think that is just carry over from years ago when everything in factory had to fit on the DVD. The current policy for factory does not restrict by size and I believe it is encouraged to get the vast majority of useful packages into factory. I could be wrong, but I think most games would be welcomed into factory. Maybe a push to do that for 12.3 should be considered? (I assume it is too late for 12.2) Greg -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-buildservice+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse-buildservice+owner@opensuse.org
Quoting Greg Freemyer <greg.freemyer@gmail.com>:
On Sat, Apr 14, 2012 at 7:08 AM, Jos Poortvliet <jos@opensuse.org> wrote: I think that is just carry over from years ago when everything in factory had to fit on the DVD.
The current policy for factory does not restrict by size and I believe it is encouraged to get the vast majority of useful packages into factory. I could be wrong, but I think most games would be welcomed into factory. Maybe a push to do that for 12.3 should be considered?
(I assume it is too late for 12.2)
This, combined with the 'update' policy we had strictly enforced. I'm rather sure none of the 'games repo' hosted packages ever gets a 'security only' related fix pushed anywhere... there are always coupled with version updates. A coupling of a specific version of a game to a specific release of openSUSE is unrealistic... probably also a reason why many of them never made it into Factory. Dominique -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-buildservice+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse-buildservice+owner@opensuse.org
On Mon, Apr 16, 2012 at 9:49 AM, Dominique Leuenberger a.k.a DimStar <DimStar@opensuse.org> wrote:
Quoting Greg Freemyer <greg.freemyer@gmail.com>:
On Sat, Apr 14, 2012 at 7:08 AM, Jos Poortvliet <jos@opensuse.org> wrote: I think that is just carry over from years ago when everything in factory had to fit on the DVD.
The current policy for factory does not restrict by size and I believe it is encouraged to get the vast majority of useful packages into factory. I could be wrong, but I think most games would be welcomed into factory. Maybe a push to do that for 12.3 should be considered?
(I assume it is too late for 12.2)
This, combined with the 'update' policy we had strictly enforced.
Since that is no longer strictly enforced, it becomes a procedural issue to handle updates. The pre-12.1 procedure was apparently very complex to push updates, but now that updates go out through OBS, is it procedurally difficult to push updates out to the released products?
I'm rather sure none of the 'games repo' hosted packages ever gets a 'security only' related fix pushed anywhere...
I doubt most opensuse leaf packages do, so that doesn't seem a reason not to have them in factory.
there are always coupled with version updates.
A coupling of a specific version of a game to a specific release of openSUSE is unrealistic... probably also a reason why many of them never made it into Factory.
But are those reasons still valid? note: If the technical issues no longer exist, maybe this discussion should start anew in either -factory or -project.
Dominique
Greg -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-buildservice+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse-buildservice+owner@opensuse.org
On Mon, Apr 16, 2012 at 10:19:10AM -0400, Greg Freemyer wrote:
On Mon, Apr 16, 2012 at 9:49 AM, Dominique Leuenberger a.k.a DimStar <DimStar@opensuse.org> wrote:
Quoting Greg Freemyer <greg.freemyer@gmail.com>:
On Sat, Apr 14, 2012 at 7:08 AM, Jos Poortvliet <jos@opensuse.org> wrote: I think that is just carry over from years ago when everything in factory had to fit on the DVD.
The current policy for factory does not restrict by size and I believe it is encouraged to get the vast majority of useful packages into factory. I could be wrong, but I think most games would be welcomed into factory. Maybe a push to do that for 12.3 should be considered?
(I assume it is too late for 12.2)
This, combined with the 'update' policy we had strictly enforced.
Since that is no longer strictly enforced, it becomes a procedural issue to handle updates.
It was basically a more strict guideline
The pre-12.1 procedure was apparently very complex to push updates, but now that updates go out through OBS, is it procedurally difficult to push updates out to the released products?
Proceduraly different, but similar difficult in the end. It was more a policy thing than a complexity one.
I'm rather sure none of the 'games repo' hosted packages ever gets a 'security only' related fix pushed anywhere...
I doubt most opensuse leaf packages do, so that doesn't seem a reason not to have them in factory.
there are always coupled with version updates.
A coupling of a specific version of a game to a specific release of openSUSE is unrealistic... probably also a reason why many of them never made it into Factory.
But are those reasons still valid?
note: If the technical issues no longer exist, maybe this discussion should start anew in either -factory or -project.
Its probably overload to release updates for a single package every month though. Ciao, Marcus -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-buildservice+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse-buildservice+owner@opensuse.org
On Mon, Apr 16, 2012 at 10:25 AM, Marcus Meissner <meissner@suse.de> wrote:
Its probably overload to release updates for a single package every month though.
Gross. I don't have any games from that repo installed. I had no idea they were that dynamic. Looks like there are about 300 packages in the games repo that compile for factory. There must be a reasonable number of those that have had exactly one release in the last 12 months. Getting together a few packagers to try and get those into factory might make a nice first step into incorporating games into factory. Then maybe go after those that have had 2 releases in the last 16 months. Or something like that. fyi: I'm not volunteering. I've got my one-man effort going to push DFIR apps to factory. I've got a dozen added to factory since 12.1 so far. Greg -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-buildservice+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse-buildservice+owner@opensuse.org
On Mon, Apr 16, 2012 at 05:42:22PM -0400, Greg Freemyer wrote:
On Mon, Apr 16, 2012 at 10:25 AM, Marcus Meissner <meissner@suse.de> wrote:
Its probably overload to release updates for a single package every month though.
Gross.
I don't have any games from that repo installed. I had no idea they were that dynamic.
Looks like there are about 300 packages in the games repo that compile for factory. There must be a reasonable number of those that have had exactly one release in the last 12 months.
Getting together a few packagers to try and get those into factory might make a nice first step into incorporating games into factory.
Then maybe go after those that have had 2 releases in the last 16 months. Or something like that.
fyi: I'm not volunteering. I've got my one-man effort going to push DFIR apps to factory. I've got a dozen added to factory since 12.1 so far.
Yes, e.g. just start with a set of ones people that read here maintain and play... Ciao, Marcus -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-buildservice+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse-buildservice+owner@opensuse.org
Marcus Meissner wrote:
[...] Its probably overload to release updates for a single package every month though.
Well, we are doing just that for Firefox, Chromium, flash, acroread etc already and noone argues about that. However, I doubt that the majority of games require that many updates. There may be a few that change their network protocol every once in a while and must be updated then to still be able to play online. Just like with any other package a new upstream version does not necessarily mean we need to always release an update immediately. cu Ludwig -- (o_ Ludwig Nussel //\ V_/_ http://www.suse.de/ SUSE LINUX Products GmbH, GF: Jeff Hawn, Jennifer Guild, Felix Imendörffer, HRB 16746 (AG Nürnberg) -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-buildservice+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse-buildservice+owner@opensuse.org
Quoting Thomas Schmidt <tom@opensuse.org>:
Hi, thanks for your feedback regarding our mockups for the software search. We implemented a working prototype which now also contains a search form.
Please check the new search at: http://software.opensuse.org/search/find and see an example app page here: http://software.opensuse.org/package/kopete
Please let me know what you think of the current state.
Thomas, Thanks for your work. It looks sweet and acts snappy... I very much like it. One thing though which I saw is the 'listing' of libs for example: http://software.opensuse.org/search/searchresult?q=gnome-shell The list of 'sub packages' seems very sub-par in this case, as apparently you're just matching gnome-shell-* from the repo and this is considered subpackages. Might be better to match on the source package: all rpm's sharing the same source package are surely related. Surprisingly though, this seems not to happen when searching for python, or php. But then, I see different behaviour when searching for those packages, as the 'search bar' automatically adds quotes around python or php, which does not happen for gnome-shell (different handling for specific packages?) Best regards, Dominique -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-buildservice+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse-buildservice+owner@opensuse.org
On Mon, Mar 12, 2012 at 1:14 PM, Dominique Leuenberger a.k.a DimStar <DimStar@opensuse.org> wrote:
Please check the new search at: http://software.opensuse.org/search/find and see an example app page here: http://software.opensuse.org/package/kopete
Please let me know what you think of the current state.
Thomas,
Thanks for your work. It looks sweet and acts snappy... I very much like it.
Indeed, what took me quite a lot of time to find in the current search page, the new one found rightaway. -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-buildservice+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse-buildservice+owner@opensuse.org
On 03/12/2012 04:41 PM, Thomas Schmidt wrote:
Hi, thanks for your feedback regarding our mockups for the software search. We implemented a working prototype which now also contains a search form.
Please check the new search at: http://software.opensuse.org/search/find and see an example app page here: http://software.opensuse.org/package/kopete
Please let me know what you think of the current state.
Looks good and the idea with the screenshots is also nice. But why use screenshots from other distro's . Maybe I am mistaken but for the following example the screen shot comes from debian <http://software.opensuse.org/package/darktable?search_term=darktable> it shows the screen shot from <http://screenshots.debian.net/screenshot/darktable> Togan -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-buildservice+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse-buildservice+owner@opensuse.org
On 12.03.2012 17:56, Togan Muftuoglu wrote:
On 03/12/2012 04:41 PM, Thomas Schmidt wrote:
Hi, thanks for your feedback regarding our mockups for the software search. We implemented a working prototype which now also contains a search form.
Please check the new search at: http://software.opensuse.org/search/find and see an example app page here: http://software.opensuse.org/package/kopete
Please let me know what you think of the current state.
Looks good and the idea with the screenshots is also nice. But why use screenshots from other distro's . Maybe I am mistaken but for the following example the screen shot comes from debian
<http://software.opensuse.org/package/darktable?search_term=darktable>
it shows the screen shot from
Hi Togan, at the moment all screenshots are coming from debian, we are using the debshots[1] server at http://screenshots.debian.net. For the future, we can check if it's worth running our own debshots server, or see if multi-distribution support gets added to debshots. We could also use distromatch[2] to get the debian package name, fetch the screenshot from screenshots.debian.net and cache it on our side. That also depends on the debshots maintainers, if they are upset about the traffic we create. Are there other ideas for handling the screenshots? Greetings [1] http://debshots.workaround.org/trac/ [2] http://www.enricozini.org/2011/debian/distromatch/ -- Thomas Schmidt (tom [at] opensuse.org) openSUSE Boosters Team "Don't Panic", Douglas Adams (11.03.1952 - 11.05.2001) -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-buildservice+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse-buildservice+owner@opensuse.org
* Thomas Schmidt <tom@opensuse.org> [03-12-12 11:44]:
Please check the new search at: http://software.opensuse.org/search/find and see an example app page here: http://software.opensuse.org/package/kopete
Please let me know what you think of the current state.
Very nice and everything is presented rather than having to specify looking for other than the main repo's. Perhaps a notice/warning for the unknowing about the stability/experimental characteristics of the not *main* repo's, maybe even a *tagging* of the repo's that are *not* main-line supported?? -- (paka)Patrick Shanahan Plainfield, Indiana, USA HOG # US1244711 http://wahoo.no-ip.org Photo Album: http://wahoo.no-ip.org/gallery2 http://en.opensuse.org openSUSE Community Member Registered Linux User #207535 @ http://linuxcounter.net -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-buildservice+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse-buildservice+owner@opensuse.org
On 12.03.2012 18:26, Patrick Shanahan wrote:
* Thomas Schmidt<tom@opensuse.org> [03-12-12 11:44]:
Please check the new search at: http://software.opensuse.org/search/find and see an example app page here: http://software.opensuse.org/package/kopete
Please let me know what you think of the current state.
Very nice and everything is presented rather than having to specify looking for other than the main repo's. Perhaps a notice/warning for the unknowing about the stability/experimental characteristics of the not *main* repo's, maybe even a *tagging* of the repo's that are *not* main-line supported??
I added such a warning now, with the option for the user to skip it the next time. Greetings -- Thomas Schmidt (tom [at] opensuse.org) openSUSE Boosters Team "Don't Panic", Douglas Adams (11.03.1952 - 11.05.2001) -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-buildservice+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse-buildservice+owner@opensuse.org
* Thomas Schmidt <tom@opensuse.org> [03-13-12 12:07]:
On 12.03.2012 18:26, Patrick Shanahan wrote:
* Thomas Schmidt<tom@opensuse.org> [03-12-12 11:44]:
Please check the new search at: http://software.opensuse.org/search/find and see an example app page here: http://software.opensuse.org/package/kopete
Please let me know what you think of the current state.
Very nice and everything is presented rather than having to specify looking for other than the main repo's. Perhaps a notice/warning for the unknowing about the stability/experimental characteristics of the not *main* repo's, maybe even a *tagging* of the repo's that are *not* main-line supported??
I added such a warning now, with the option for the user to skip it the next time.
Tks, I looked and like the presentation. I wonder that I do not see "Tumbleweed" ?? -- (paka)Patrick Shanahan Plainfield, Indiana, USA HOG # US1244711 http://wahoo.no-ip.org Photo Album: http://wahoo.no-ip.org/gallery2 http://en.opensuse.org openSUSE Community Member Registered Linux User #207535 @ http://linuxcounter.net -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-buildservice+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse-buildservice+owner@opensuse.org
Dear Thomas, hello list, I think the revamping is a great idea and I appreciate your work and effort but I think this new search still has it difficulties and problems. Am 13.03.2012 19:38, schrieb Patrick Shanahan:
* Thomas Schmidt<tom@opensuse.org> [03-13-12 12:07]:
On 12.03.2012 18:26, Patrick Shanahan wrote:
Please check the new search at: http://software.opensuse.org/search/find and see an example app page here: http://software.opensuse.org/package/kopete
Please let me know what you think of the current state. Very nice and everything is presented rather than having to specify looking for other than the main repo's. Perhaps a notice/warning for the unknowing about the stability/experimental characteristics of the not *main* repo's, maybe even a *tagging* of the repo's that are *not*
* Thomas Schmidt<tom@opensuse.org> [03-12-12 11:44]: main-line supported?? I added such a warning now, with the option for the user to skip it the next time. Tks, I looked and like the presentation.
I wonder that I do not see "Tumbleweed" ??
I think it is still mixed up with openSUSE 12.1. Compare: https://features.opensuse.org/310986 And now you could not even guess/see that the packages are really build for Tumbleweed and not for 12.1. In addition to that you do not see the file names. So it will be easier for the packages that are already easy to search with the YaST Software Manager. But for the cases software search would be a help now - an other solution would be needed. Example (maybe I am wrong?): Kernel module r8168 (I think it has to be for the right kernel version number, kernel flavor and openSUSE version) Please make a try to find a fitting one (and especially if there is one) with http://software.opensuse.org/search/searchresult?q=r8168 against http://software.opensuse.org/search?q=r8168&baseproject=openSUSE%3A12.1 for the case on http://lists.opensuse.org/opensuse/2012-03/msg00765.html
uname -a Linux linux-x9yw 3.1.9-1.4-desktop #1 SMP PREEMPT Fri Jan 27 08:55:10 UTC 2012 (efb5ff4) x86_64 x86_64 x86_64 GNU/Linux
The new search may seem easier for me at the beginning as I could better choose the modules fitting to a kernel flavor. But if you do not look at the linked URL I will not be able to see that the kernel version number does not fit. And before this change it was only puzzling/difficult that the Tumbleweed packages are filed under "openSUSE 12.1" - with the new design it is almost impossible to notice. I guess this would lead to many systems messed up in a wild Tumbleweed/12.1 mixture... Regards Martin -- openSUSE profile: https://users.opensuse.org/show/pistazienfresser Martin Seidler KIRCHSTR. 11, 65843 SULZBACH (TAUNUS) FON (priv.): +49 6196 40 20 283 Ø FON (comm.): +49 6196 59 236 23 Ø FAX: +49 6196 59 236 24 Ø -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-buildservice+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse-buildservice+owner@opensuse.org
On 16.03.2012 20:44, Martin Seidler wrote:
Dear Thomas, hello list,
I think the revamping is a great idea and I appreciate your work and effort but I think this new search still has it difficulties and problems.
Am 13.03.2012 19:38, schrieb Patrick Shanahan:
* Thomas Schmidt<tom@opensuse.org> [03-13-12 12:07]:
On 12.03.2012 18:26, Patrick Shanahan wrote:
Please check the new search at: http://software.opensuse.org/search/find and see an example app page here: http://software.opensuse.org/package/kopete
Please let me know what you think of the current state. Very nice and everything is presented rather than having to specify looking for other than the main repo's. Perhaps a notice/warning for the unknowing about the stability/experimental characteristics of the not *main* repo's, maybe even a *tagging* of the repo's that are *not*
* Thomas Schmidt<tom@opensuse.org> [03-12-12 11:44]: main-line supported?? I added such a warning now, with the option for the user to skip it the next time. Tks, I looked and like the presentation.
I wonder that I do not see "Tumbleweed" ??
I think it is still mixed up with openSUSE 12.1.
Compare: https://features.opensuse.org/310986
And now you could not even guess/see that the packages are really build for Tumbleweed and not for 12.1.
In addition to that you do not see the file names.
So it will be easier for the packages that are already easy to search with the YaST Software Manager.
But for the cases software search would be a help now - an other solution would be needed.
Example (maybe I am wrong?):
Kernel module r8168 (I think it has to be for the right kernel version number, kernel flavor and openSUSE version)
Please make a try to find a fitting one (and especially if there is one) with
http://software.opensuse.org/search/searchresult?q=r8168 against http://software.opensuse.org/search?q=r8168&baseproject=openSUSE%3A12.1
for the case on
http://lists.opensuse.org/opensuse/2012-03/msg00765.html
uname -a Linux linux-x9yw 3.1.9-1.4-desktop #1 SMP PREEMPT Fri Jan 27 08:55:10 UTC 2012 (efb5ff4) x86_64 x86_64 x86_64 GNU/Linux
The new search may seem easier for me at the beginning as I could better choose the modules fitting to a kernel flavor. But if you do not look at the linked URL I will not be able to see that the kernel version number does not fit.
And before this change it was only puzzling/difficult that the Tumbleweed packages are filed under "openSUSE 12.1" - with the new design it is almost impossible to notice. I guess this would lead to many systems messed up in a wild Tumbleweed/12.1 mixture...
Hi Martin, please check again. I updated the software search page with the latest version, and it shows Tumbleweed as a seperate distro now. Greetings -- Thomas Schmidt (tom [at] opensuse.org) openSUSE Boosters Team "Don't Panic", Douglas Adams (1952 - 11.05.2001) -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-buildservice+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse-buildservice+owner@opensuse.org
* Thomas Schmidt <tom@opensuse.org> [03-17-12 19:39]:
Hi Martin, please check again. I updated the software search page with the latest version, and it shows Tumbleweed as a seperate distro now.
tks much, -- (paka)Patrick Shanahan Plainfield, Indiana, USA HOG # US1244711 http://wahoo.no-ip.org Photo Album: http://wahoo.no-ip.org/gallery2 http://en.opensuse.org openSUSE Community Member Registered Linux User #207535 @ http://linuxcounter.net -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-buildservice+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse-buildservice+owner@opensuse.org
Am 18.03.2012 00:37, schrieb Thomas Schmidt:
On 16.03.2012 20:44, Martin Seidler wrote:
Dear Thomas, hello list,
I think the revamping is a great idea and I appreciate your work and effort but I think this new search still has it difficulties and problems.
Am 13.03.2012 19:38, schrieb Patrick Shanahan:
* Thomas Schmidt<tom@opensuse.org> [03-13-12 12:07]:
On 12.03.2012 18:26, Patrick Shanahan wrote:
Please check the new search at: http://software.opensuse.org/search/find and see an example app page here: http://software.opensuse.org/package/kopete
Please let me know what you think of the current state. Very nice and everything is presented rather than having to specify looking for other than the main repo's. Perhaps a notice/warning for the unknowing about the stability/experimental characteristics of the not *main* repo's, maybe even a *tagging* of the repo's that are *not*
* Thomas Schmidt<tom@opensuse.org> [03-12-12 11:44]: main-line supported?? I added such a warning now, with the option for the user to skip it the next time. Tks, I looked and like the presentation.
I wonder that I do not see "Tumbleweed" ??
I think it is still mixed up with openSUSE 12.1.
Compare: https://features.opensuse.org/310986
And now you could not even guess/see that the packages are really build for Tumbleweed and not for 12.1.
In addition to that you do not see the file names.
So it will be easier for the packages that are already easy to search with the YaST Software Manager.
But for the cases software search would be a help now - an other solution would be needed.
Example (maybe I am wrong?):
Kernel module r8168 (I think it has to be for the right kernel version number, kernel flavor and openSUSE version)
Please make a try to find a fitting one (and especially if there is one) with
http://software.opensuse.org/search/searchresult?q=r8168 against http://software.opensuse.org/search?q=r8168&baseproject=openSUSE%3A12.1
for the case on
http://lists.opensuse.org/opensuse/2012-03/msg00765.html
uname -a Linux linux-x9yw 3.1.9-1.4-desktop #1 SMP PREEMPT Fri Jan 27 08:55:10 UTC 2012 (efb5ff4) x86_64 x86_64 x86_64 GNU/Linux
The new search may seem easier for me at the beginning as I could better choose the modules fitting to a kernel flavor. But if you do not look at the linked URL I will not be able to see that the kernel version number does not fit.
And before this change it was only puzzling/difficult that the Tumbleweed packages are filed under "openSUSE 12.1" - with the new design it is almost impossible to notice. I guess this would lead to many systems messed up in a wild Tumbleweed/12.1 mixture...
Hi Martin, please check again. I updated the software search page with the latest version, and it shows Tumbleweed as a seperate distro now.
Greetings
Thanks Thomas, 1) The search for openSUSE 12.1 packages with the new front-end/layout seems now really to lead to openSUSE 12.1 and not also to Tumbleweed packages. I think that is really a big improvement! 2) But as I am not able to see the name of the packages in the search results (unless I use the trick with the URL of the Link) it is still pretty difficult to find a package for the fitting kernel version number like 3.1.9-1.4 I would like to see the information like the name of the file r8168-kmp-desktop-8.027.00_k*3.1.0_1.2-7.1*.x86_64.rpm without going the way: http://software.opensuse.org/package/r8168-kmp-desktop?search_term=r8168 (klick, klick, klick, klick, ...) -> https://build.opensuse.org/package/show?project=home:TheTiger&package=r8168 -> https://build.opensuse.org/package/binaries?package=r8168&project=home%3ATheTiger&repository=openSUSE_12.1 -> "... r8168-kmp-desktop-8.027.00_k3.1.0_1.2-7.1.x86_64.rpm ... " Maybe I am not learned enough to understand that kernel module things and I could use kernel modules build for a 3.1.0_1.2-7.1 openSUSE kernel version also for a kernel with a 3.1.9-1.4 version number but I thought things like that would be important. 3) In my view it would make sense to switch back to the old/current layout when the results from the sub-project repositories are shown (or at least for the really private home repositories). In addition to more information about the packages and the package builders this would be a fitting 'warning' - more than (only) that pop-up window. Regards Martin -- openSUSE profile: https://users.opensuse.org/show/pistazienfresser Martin Seidler KIRCHSTR. 11, 65843 SULZBACH (TAUNUS) FON (priv.): +49 6196 40 20 283 Ø FON (comm.): +49 6196 59 236 23 Ø FAX: +49 6196 59 236 24 Ø -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-buildservice+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse-buildservice+owner@opensuse.org
On Sun, Mar 18, 2012 at 03:45:35PM +0100, Martin Seidler wrote: [ 8< ]
2) But as I am not able to see the name of the packages in the search results (unless I use the trick with the URL of the Link) it is still pretty difficult to find a package for the fitting kernel version number like 3.1.9-1.4
I would like to see the information like the name of the file r8168-kmp-desktop-8.027.00_k*3.1.0_1.2-7.1*.x86_64.rpm
How do you like to get this information displayed? As a mouse pointer over action? Messing the screen up should be avoided. The layout must stay as simple als possible.
without going the way:
http://software.opensuse.org/package/r8168-kmp-desktop?search_term=r8168 (klick, klick, klick, klick, ...) -> https://build.opensuse.org/package/show?project=home:TheTiger&package=r8168 -> https://build.opensuse.org/package/binaries?package=r8168&project=home%3ATheTiger&repository=openSUSE_12.1 -> "... r8168-kmp-desktop-8.027.00_k3.1.0_1.2-7.1.x86_64.rpm ... "
Maybe I am not learned enough to understand that kernel module things and I could use kernel modules build for a 3.1.0_1.2-7.1 openSUSE kernel version also for a kernel with a 3.1.9-1.4 version number but I thought things like that would be important.
As long as the ABI stays stable and bug fixing doesn't require an update the weak update mechanism handle this. As the result the /lib/modules/3.1.9-*/weak-updates/updates/nvidia.ko sym link points to /lib/modules/3.1.0-1.2-default/updates/nvidia.ko for example in the case you're runnig your system with the default kernel flavour. http://lists.openSUSE.org/opensuse/2012-03/msg00827.html Thanks, Lars -- Lars Müller [ˈlaː(r)z ˈmʏlɐ] Samba Team SUSE Linux, Maxfeldstraße 5, 90409 Nürnberg, Germany
On Sun, Mar 18, 2012 at 03:45:35PM +0100, Martin Seidler wrote: [ 8< ]
2) But as I am not able to see the name of the packages in the search results (unless I use the trick with the URL of the Link) it is still pretty difficult to find a package for the fitting kernel version number like 3.1.9-1.4
I would like to see the information like the name of the file r8168-kmp-desktop-8.027.00_k*3.1.0_1.2-7.1*.x86_64.rpm
How do you like to get this information displayed?
As a mouse pointer over action? As the name of the file is part of the linked URL (for example currently: http://download.opensuse.org/repositories/home:/TheTiger/openSUSE_12.1/x86_6... )
Am 18.03.2012 16:35, schrieb Lars Müller: this is already the case in a way. And I suspect there is something shortened in the current layout with the "...".
Messing the screen up should be avoided. The layout must stay as simple als possible.
As written I would like the layout a switch back to the current layout for the community and home or at least for home repositories. And why "must" the layout be so simple for community and home repositories if they are so 'dangerous'/"probably not tested by anyone"?
without going the way:
http://software.opensuse.org/package/r8168-kmp-desktop?search_term=r8168 (klick, klick, klick, klick, ...) -> https://build.opensuse.org/package/show?project=home:TheTiger&package=r8168 -> https://build.opensuse.org/package/binaries?package=r8168&project=home%3ATheTiger&repository=openSUSE_12.1 -> "... r8168-kmp-desktop-8.027.00_k3.1.0_1.2-7.1.x86_64.rpm ... "
Maybe I am not learned enough to understand that kernel module things and I could use kernel modules build for a 3.1.0_1.2-7.1 openSUSE kernel version also for a kernel with a 3.1.9-1.4 version number but I thought things like that would be important.
As long as the ABI stays stable and bug fixing doesn't require an update the weak update mechanism handle this.
As the result the /lib/modules/3.1.9-*/weak-updates/updates/nvidia.ko sym link points to /lib/modules/3.1.0-1.2-default/updates/nvidia.ko for example in the case you're runnig your system with the default kernel flavour.
Thanks for pointer via link and the citation. So Ralph DeWitt from http://lists.opensuse.org/opensuse/2012-03/msg00676.html and following with and
uname -a Linux linux-x9yw 3.1.9-1.4-desktop #1 SMP PREEMPT Fri Jan 27 08:55:10 UTC 2012 (efb5ff4) x86_64 x86_64 x86_64 GNU/Linux
would probably be able to use the r8168-kmp-desktop-8.027.00_k3.1.0_1.2-7.1.x86_64.rpm as the ABI (here probably: Application binary interface) has not changed from kernel desktop x86_64 3.1.0_1.2-7.1 to kernel desktop x86_64 3.1.9-1.4 if he trusts the work of the user "TheTiger" from https://build.opensuse.org/home?user=TheTiger (and especially the newest package "Updated at: 2012-03-18 18:39:02+01:00"/"...3.1.0_1.2-7.1...")? If so thanks for the clarification and education. Maybe a information/stamp like "version probably fitting to ... ... openSUSE 12.1 updates from 2012-03-17 0:03:02 ..."/ ... current update status..." "up to date.... ...(but not tested)" could be part of "as simple as possible" (and avoid further questions/confusion like cited above and mine)? Regards Martin -- openSUSE profile: https://users.opensuse.org/show/pistazienfresser Martin Seidler KIRCHSTR. 11, 65843 SULZBACH (TAUNUS) FON (priv.): +49 6196 40 20 283 Ø FON (comm.): +49 6196 59 236 23 Ø FAX: +49 6196 59 236 24 Ø -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-buildservice+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse-buildservice+owner@opensuse.org
On Sun, Mar 18, 2012 at 06:49:11PM +0100, Martin Seidler wrote:
Am 18.03.2012 16:35, schrieb Lars Müller:
On Sun, Mar 18, 2012 at 03:45:35PM +0100, Martin Seidler wrote: [ 8< ] Messing the screen up should be avoided. The layout must stay as simple als possible. As written I would like the layout a switch back to the current layout for the community and home or at least for home repositories.
And why "must" the layout be so simple for community and home repositories if they are so 'dangerous'/"probably not tested by anyone"?
For community amd home repositories it can't be ugly and unusable enough. Any additional warning signs not to use them I count as an advantage. ;) Honestly my main concern had been we mess up the output for the most important uses cases. As such I count our default search in standard and update repositories. These output for these I don't like to see getting cluttered up. I'm sure Tom will balance these conflicting interests well. [ 8< ]
So Ralph DeWitt from http://lists.opensuse.org/opensuse/2012-03/msg00676.html and following with
and
uname -a Linux linux-x9yw 3.1.9-1.4-desktop #1 SMP PREEMPT Fri Jan 27 08:55:10 UTC 2012 (efb5ff4) x86_64 x86_64 x86_64 GNU/Linux
would probably be able to use the r8168-kmp-desktop-8.027.00_k3.1.0_1.2-7.1.x86_64.rpm as the ABI (here probably: Application binary interface) has not changed from kernel desktop x86_64 3.1.0_1.2-7.1 to kernel desktop x86_64 3.1.9-1.4 if he trusts the work of the user "TheTiger" from https://build.opensuse.org/home?user=TheTiger (and especially the newest package "Updated at: 2012-03-18 18:39:02+01:00"/"...3.1.0_1.2-7.1...")?
If so thanks for the clarification and education.
Maybe a information/stamp like "version probably fitting to ... ... openSUSE 12.1 updates from 2012-03-17 0:03:02 ..."/ ... current update status..." "up to date....
...(but not tested)" could be part of "as simple as possible" (and avoid further questions/confusion like cited above and mine)?
Sounds like a valid approach to me. Maybe Tom needs to check back with a Linux kernel developer. Cheers, Lars -- Lars Müller [ˈlaː(r)z ˈmʏlɐ] Samba Team SUSE Linux, Maxfeldstraße 5, 90409 Nürnberg, Germany
On 18.03.2012 19:08, Lars Müller wrote:
On Sun, Mar 18, 2012 at 06:49:11PM +0100, Martin Seidler wrote:
Am 18.03.2012 16:35, schrieb Lars Müller:
On Sun, Mar 18, 2012 at 03:45:35PM +0100, Martin Seidler wrote: [ 8< ] Messing the screen up should be avoided. The layout must stay as simple als possible. As written I would like the layout a switch back to the current layout for the community and home or at least for home repositories.
And why "must" the layout be so simple for community and home repositories if they are so 'dangerous'/"probably not tested by anyone"?
For community amd home repositories it can't be ugly and unusable enough. Any additional warning signs not to use them I count as an advantage. ;)
Honestly my main concern had been we mess up the output for the most important uses cases. As such I count our default search in standard and update repositories. These output for these I don't like to see getting cluttered up.
Atm you have these extra steps to get to an unmaintained package: - click on "Show other versions" - click on your distribution - click on "Show unsupported packages" - click on "continue" in the warning popup Isn't that enough?
I'm sure Tom will balance these conflicting interests well.
[ 8< ]
So Ralph DeWitt from http://lists.opensuse.org/opensuse/2012-03/msg00676.html and following with
and
uname -a Linux linux-x9yw 3.1.9-1.4-desktop #1 SMP PREEMPT Fri Jan 27 08:55:10 UTC 2012 (efb5ff4) x86_64 x86_64 x86_64 GNU/Linux
would probably be able to use the r8168-kmp-desktop-8.027.00_k3.1.0_1.2-7.1.x86_64.rpm as the ABI (here probably: Application binary interface) has not changed from kernel desktop x86_64 3.1.0_1.2-7.1 to kernel desktop x86_64 3.1.9-1.4 if he trusts the work of the user "TheTiger" from https://build.opensuse.org/home?user=TheTiger (and especially the newest package "Updated at: 2012-03-18 18:39:02+01:00"/"...3.1.0_1.2-7.1...")?
If so thanks for the clarification and education.
Maybe a information/stamp like "version probably fitting to ... ... openSUSE 12.1 updates from 2012-03-17 0:03:02 ..."/ ... current update status..." "up to date....
...(but not tested)" could be part of "as simple as possible" (and avoid further questions/confusion like cited above and mine)?
Sounds like a valid approach to me. Maybe Tom needs to check back with a Linux kernel developer.
I think we are getting into an area here that is only interesting for 0.1% of the software search users. So I won't integrate Kernel ABI compatibility tests right now, but the code is open for patches ;-) Greetings -- Thomas Schmidt (tom [at] opensuse.org) openSUSE Boosters Team "Don't Panic", Douglas Adams (11.03.1952 - 11.05.2001) -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-buildservice+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse-buildservice+owner@opensuse.org
On 18.03.2012 15:45, Martin Seidler wrote:
Am 18.03.2012 00:37, schrieb Thomas Schmidt:
On 16.03.2012 20:44, Martin Seidler wrote:
Dear Thomas, hello list,
I think the revamping is a great idea and I appreciate your work and effort but I think this new search still has it difficulties and problems.
Am 13.03.2012 19:38, schrieb Patrick Shanahan:
* Thomas Schmidt<tom@opensuse.org> [03-13-12 12:07]:
On 12.03.2012 18:26, Patrick Shanahan wrote:
* Thomas Schmidt<tom@opensuse.org> [03-12-12 11:44]: > Please check the new search at: > http://software.opensuse.org/search/find > and see an example app page here: > http://software.opensuse.org/package/kopete > > Please let me know what you think of the current state. Very nice and everything is presented rather than having to specify looking for other than the main repo's. Perhaps a notice/warning for the unknowing about the stability/experimental characteristics of the not *main* repo's, maybe even a *tagging* of the repo's that are *not* main-line supported?? I added such a warning now, with the option for the user to skip it the next time. Tks, I looked and like the presentation.
I wonder that I do not see "Tumbleweed" ??
I think it is still mixed up with openSUSE 12.1.
Compare: https://features.opensuse.org/310986
And now you could not even guess/see that the packages are really build for Tumbleweed and not for 12.1.
In addition to that you do not see the file names.
So it will be easier for the packages that are already easy to search with the YaST Software Manager.
But for the cases software search would be a help now - an other solution would be needed.
Example (maybe I am wrong?):
Kernel module r8168 (I think it has to be for the right kernel version number, kernel flavor and openSUSE version)
Please make a try to find a fitting one (and especially if there is one) with
http://software.opensuse.org/search/searchresult?q=r8168 against http://software.opensuse.org/search?q=r8168&baseproject=openSUSE%3A12.1
for the case on
http://lists.opensuse.org/opensuse/2012-03/msg00765.html
uname -a Linux linux-x9yw 3.1.9-1.4-desktop #1 SMP PREEMPT Fri Jan 27 08:55:10 UTC 2012 (efb5ff4) x86_64 x86_64 x86_64 GNU/Linux
The new search may seem easier for me at the beginning as I could better choose the modules fitting to a kernel flavor. But if you do not look at the linked URL I will not be able to see that the kernel version number does not fit.
And before this change it was only puzzling/difficult that the Tumbleweed packages are filed under "openSUSE 12.1" - with the new design it is almost impossible to notice. I guess this would lead to many systems messed up in a wild Tumbleweed/12.1 mixture...
Hi Martin, please check again. I updated the software search page with the latest version, and it shows Tumbleweed as a seperate distro now.
Greetings
Thanks Thomas,
1) The search for openSUSE 12.1 packages with the new front-end/layout seems now really to lead to openSUSE 12.1 and not also to Tumbleweed packages.
I think that is really a big improvement!
2) But as I am not able to see the name of the packages in the search results (unless I use the trick with the URL of the Link) it is still pretty difficult to find a package for the fitting kernel version number like 3.1.9-1.4
I would like to see the information like the name of the file r8168-kmp-desktop-8.027.00_k*3.1.0_1.2-7.1*.x86_64.rpm
without going the way:
http://software.opensuse.org/package/r8168-kmp-desktop?search_term=r8168 (klick, klick, klick, klick, ...) -> https://build.opensuse.org/package/show?project=home:TheTiger&package=r8168 -> https://build.opensuse.org/package/binaries?package=r8168&project=home%3ATheTiger&repository=openSUSE_12.1 -> "... r8168-kmp-desktop-8.027.00_k3.1.0_1.2-7.1.x86_64.rpm ... "
Maybe I am not learned enough to understand that kernel module things and I could use kernel modules build for a 3.1.0_1.2-7.1 openSUSE kernel version also for a kernel with a 3.1.9-1.4 version number but I thought things like that would be important.
I can't follow you. You should not need to check any version numbering, just click on the one-click-install link for your distribution and the package management will resolve the dependencies and install your package. For your case Tumbleweed, you probably have installed kernel 3.2.10 from the Tumbleweed repo. Searching for r8168-kmp-desktop will give you the package r8168-kmp-desktop-8.024.00_k3.0.7_45 from the drivers:nic repository. Which is obviously build for an older Kernel version, because it fails to build in the drivers:nic obs project since some time. So I think it won't be installable for you and the package management will detect this. Or am I wrong here? We are in the area of unsupported packages here where the page shows a clear warning that there are risks.
3) In my view it would make sense to switch back to the old/current layout when the results from the sub-project repositories are shown (or at least for the really private home repositories).
In addition to more information about the packages and the package builders this would be a fitting 'warning' - more than (only) that pop-up window.
How should that work to include the old layout search results in the new application page? Could you create graphic that shows what you mean? Greetings -- Thomas Schmidt (tom [at] opensuse.org) openSUSE Boosters Team "Don't Panic", Douglas Adams (11.03.1952 - 11.05.2001) -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-buildservice+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse-buildservice+owner@opensuse.org
On 18.03.2012 15:45, Martin Seidler wrote:
On 16.03.2012 20:44, Martin Seidler wrote: [...]
> * Thomas Schmidt<tom@opensuse.org> [03-12-12 11:44]: >> Please check the new search at: [1] >> http://software.opensuse.org/search/find >> and see an example app page here: >> http://software.opensuse.org/package/kopete >> >> Please let me know what you think of the current state. [...] I.1)
In addition to that you do not see the file names.
So it will be easier for the packages that are already easy to search with the YaST Software Manager.
But for the cases software search would be a help now - an other solution would be needed.
Example (maybe I am wrong?):
Kernel module r8168 (I think it has to be for the right kernel version number, kernel flavor and openSUSE version)
Please make a try to find a fitting one (and especially if there is one) with
http://software.opensuse.org/search/searchresult?q=r8168 against http://software.opensuse.org/search?q=r8168&baseproject=openSUSE%3A12.1
for the case on
http://lists.opensuse.org/opensuse/2012-03/msg00765.html
uname -a Linux linux-x9yw 3.1.9-1.4-desktop #1 SMP PREEMPT Fri Jan 27 08:55:10 UTC 2012 (efb5ff4) x86_64 x86_64 x86_64 GNU/Linux
The new search may seem easier for me at the beginning as I could better choose the modules fitting to a kernel flavor. But if you do not look at the linked URL I will not be able to see that the kernel version number does not fit.
[...]
Am 18.03.2012 00:37, schrieb Thomas Schmidt: 2) But as I am not able to see the name of the packages in the search results (unless I use the trick with the URL of the Link) it is still pretty difficult to find a package for the fitting kernel version number like 3.1.9-1.4
I would like to see the information like the name of the file r8168-kmp-desktop-8.027.00_k*3.1.0_1.2-7.1*.x86_64.rpm
without going the way:
http://software.opensuse.org/package/r8168-kmp-desktop?search_term=r8168 (klick, klick, klick, klick, ...) -> https://build.opensuse.org/package/show?project=home:TheTiger&package=r8168
-> "... r8168-kmp-desktop-8.027.00_k3.1.0_1.2-7.1.x86_64.rpm ... "
Maybe I am not learned enough to understand that kernel module things and I could use kernel modules build for a 3.1.0_1.2-7.1 openSUSE kernel version also for a kernel with a 3.1.9-1.4 version number but I thought things like that would be important.
I can't follow you. Seems so. Apart from reading clicking on the blue things might help. They are called links and may lead to additional information... ;) You should not need to check any version numbering, just click on the one-click-install link for your distribution and the package management will resolve the dependencies and install your package. Nether do I or did I want to install a Kernel module r8168 or any
Am 19.03.2012 12:13, schrieb Thomas Schmidt: package at all in the linked case.
For your case Tumbleweed,
Nether the user who had asked for help (and is now probably just using an other distro or no linux based system at all) had been using Tumbleweed nor do I,
you probably have installed kernel 3.2.10 from the Tumbleweed repo. Searching for r8168-kmp-desktop will give you the package r8168-kmp-desktop-8.024.00_k3.0.7_45 from the drivers:nic repository. Trying to follow you new introduced case I will not see name of the file but "8.024.00_k3.0.7_45". Something like that would suffice in my point of view.
In the real case Ralph DeWitt was looking for help with openSUSE 12.1. So I do the described search once again today with the new search[1]: a) I go to http://software.opensuse.org/search/find b) I enter "r8168" -> http://software.opensuse.org/search/searchresult?q=r8168&search_devel=false&search_unsupported=false&baseproject=openSUSE%3A12.1 "No packages found matching your search. You could try to extend your search to unsupported packages or search for another base distribution (currently openSUSE:12.1)."[2] c) I click on the screw-wrench beneath the search button d) I click on "[x] Show unsupported packages" d') I click on the search button again to get a URL I can post here -> http://software.opensuse.org/search/searchresult?q=r8168&search_devel=false&search_unsupported=false&search_unsupported=true&baseproject=openSUSE%3A12.1 shows to me: "r8168 Kernel module for RealTek RTL8111/8168 PCI-Express NICs Sub-packages: kmp-default kmp-desktop kmp-pae kmp-xen " e) I click on "kmp-desktop" (linked with:http://software.opensuse.org/package/r8168-kmp-desktop?search_term=r8168 ) -> http://software.opensuse.org/package/r8168-kmp-desktop?search_term=r8168 "r8168-kmp-desktop Kernel module for RealTek RTL8111/8168 PCI-Express NICs Realtek r8168 kernel module for RealTek RTL8111/8168, Gigabit Ethernet controllers with PCI-Express interface. openSUSE Factory Show unsupported packages openSUSE 12.1 Show unsupported packages openSUSE 11.4 openSUSE Tumbleweed Show more packages for unsupported distributions" f) I click on the second "Show unsupported packages" - the one under "openSUSE 12.1" (linked with: http://software.opensuse.org/package/r8168-kmp-desktop?search_term=r8168# ) -> A window pops up showing: "Warning Please be aware that the following packages are from unofficial repositories. That means they are not reviewed by openSUSE and may contain unstable or experimental software. [ ] Don't show this warning the next time [Continue] " g) I click on "[Continue]" -> a new line appears with " home:TheTiger 8.027.00_k3.1.0_1... 32 Bit 64 Bit 1 Click Install"[3] I.2) In the 'oLd search'[1] I see the file-names if I search for "r8168-kmp-desktop" -> http://software.opensuse.org/search?q=r8168-kmp-desktop&baseproject=openSUSE%3A12.1&lang=en "[...] r8168-kmp-desktop drivers:nic/openSUSE_Tumbleweed Realtek r8168 kernel module for RealTek RTL8111/8168, Gigabit Ethernet controllers with PCI-Express interface. 1-Click Install Manual Package Download Go to OBS Project i586 r8168-kmp-desktop-8.024.00_k3.0.7_45-1.13.i586.rpm x86_64 r8168-kmp-desktop-8.024.00_k3.0.7_45-1.13.x86_64.rpm [...]" Instead of "8.027.00_k3.1.0_1..." I would like to see something not so much shortened like "8.027.00_k3.1.0_1.2-7.1" or again the filenames for community and home repositories. II. I do still not know why the new search leads me to a result from "home:TheTiger" and "[...] http://download.opensuse.org/repositories/home:/TheTiger/openSUSE_12.1/x86_6... and with 12.1 the URL of the repository " but http://software.opensuse.org/search?q=r8168-kmp-desktop&baseproject=openSUSE%3A12.1&lang=en gives me still something from "drivers:nic/openSUSE_Tumbleweed" and " http://download.opensuse.org/repositories/drivers:/nic/openSUSE_Tumbleweed ". III.
Which is obviously build for an older Kernel version, because it fails to build in the drivers:nic obs project since some time. If this information would be displayed on the output for results in community and home repositories it might be a bit more in the direction of 'obvious'.... So I think it won't be installable for you and the package management will detect this. Or am I wrong here? I have no Tumbleweed installation so I am not able to test your new introduced case. But if you do point me a case for a 12.1 installation I will try if the package management will prevent me from ruining my system or not.
But do you think that trying to install each package that might work and hoping for the package management to give more information in the process of installing is an good alternative to supplying more information like in the output old search? IV.
We are in the area of unsupported packages here where the page shows a clear warning that there are risks.
We are in a area where nether zypper nor YaST nor YaST2>Software Management nor the wiki will give any information before adding even more repositories to the package management of the installed system. Is it necessary to reduce the information of the output in this area in order to make http://software.opensuse.org/ better for a task that could be done with zypper or YaST or YaST2>Software Management or the wiki like searching for packages in the Main and Update repositories of your recently installed version of openSUSE?
3) In my view it would make sense to switch back to the old/current layout when the results from the sub-project repositories are shown (or at least for the really private home repositories).
In addition to more information about the packages and the package builders this would be a fitting 'warning' - more than (only) that pop-up window.
How should that work to include the old layout search results in the new application page?
If this is a new search[1] engine: someone might add more fields in the 'area' where someone has explicitly searched for results in the community and home repositories. If this is only a new layout[1] for entering the search terms and displaying the results of the already existing search engine: it might be possible just to use the old layout from the stage on when someone has clicked on that new buttons to explicitly search for results in the community and home repositories. My suspicion is that in general often people do not click on links to get more information but (if ad all) only read the information given on the current screen (compare above under I.1)) - if at all. But if both is not technical possible/easy enough to realize: It might be that reducing the information in the area where it would make sense to display it would be justified by the possible decrease of cases when people have used the software search for a task that could be done easily with other tools and by doing so have added ca. 20 new repositories to their system and messed up everything.
Could you create graphic that shows what you mean? For example an layout like on http://software.opensuse.org/search?q=r8168-kmp-desktop&baseproject=openSUSE%3A12.1&lang=en I do not know what you want to have shown (more) graphically.
But if a layout with less information is the price to pay for getting results for openSUSE 12.1 and not openSUSE Tumbleweed if someone searches for packages for openSUSE 12.1 than this improvement will probably be even worth the lost of information in the new display of the results. Regards Martin [1] Is the 'thing' on http://software.opensuse.org/search/find a new search engine/an other search engine ( https://trello.com/card/fork-the-ubuntu-software-center-and-make-it-a-projec... makes me suspect this) or only a new layout/presentation of the output of the old search engine? [2] "Unsupported" is not a term with a clear meaning - if the packages from the community and home repositories are "unsupported" than the conclusion is possible and in my view likely to make (as a argumentum e contrario) that the packages from the other repositories are supported. But who wants to give, grant or guaranty any support to that packages and in what way and extent? Do for example the packages from the Evergreen repositories really need more more warnings than the packages from the Tumbleweed repositories? I think that here was made a simplifiation of not simple things and this will probably lead to more confusion. [3] If I recall my last try to use that "new search"[1] I was only seeing something like ""8.027.00 ..." instead of the full filenames. If so there might be an improvement of the output or the layout. -- openSUSE profile: https://users.opensuse.org/show/pistazienfresser Martin Seidler KIRCHSTR. 11, 65843 SULZBACH (TAUNUS) FON (priv.): +49 6196 40 20 283 Ø FON (comm.): +49 6196 59 236 23 Ø FAX: +49 6196 59 236 24 Ø -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-buildservice+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse-buildservice+owner@opensuse.org
On 20.03.2012 10:52, Martin Seidler wrote:
Am 19.03.2012 12:13, schrieb Thomas Schmidt:
On 18.03.2012 15:45, Martin Seidler wrote:
Am 18.03.2012 00:37, schrieb Thomas Schmidt:
On 16.03.2012 20:44, Martin Seidler wrote: [...]
>> * Thomas Schmidt<tom@opensuse.org> [03-12-12 11:44]: >>> Please check the new search at: [1] >>> http://software.opensuse.org/search/find >>> and see an example app page here: >>> http://software.opensuse.org/package/kopete >>> >>> Please let me know what you think of the current state. [...] Trying to follow you new introduced case I will not see name of the file but "8.024.00_k3.0.7_45". Something like that would suffice in my point of view.
I made some more space for the version number. It should be readable now. [...]
II. I do still not know why the new search leads me to a result from "home:TheTiger" and "[...] http://download.opensuse.org/repositories/home:/TheTiger/openSUSE_12.1/x86_6... and with 12.1 the URL of the repository " but http://software.opensuse.org/search?q=r8168-kmp-desktop&baseproject=openSUSE%3A12.1&lang=en gives me still something from "drivers:nic/openSUSE_Tumbleweed" and " http://download.opensuse.org/repositories/drivers:/nic/openSUSE_Tumbleweed ".
I would say it is a bug in the old search that it offers Tumbleweed packages when searched for 12.1 because it will switch the user to Tumbleweed when he adds that repo. Technically this is because the obs backend marks Tumbleweed packages as build for 12.1.
III.
Which is obviously build for an older Kernel version, because it fails to build in the drivers:nic obs project since some time. If this information would be displayed on the output for results in community and home repositories it might be a bit more in the direction of 'obvious'.... So I think it won't be installable for you and the package management will detect this. Or am I wrong here? I have no Tumbleweed installation so I am not able to test your new introduced case. But if you do point me a case for a 12.1 installation I will try if the package management will prevent me from ruining my system or not.
But do you think that trying to install each package that might work and hoping for the package management to give more information in the process of installing is an good alternative to supplying more information like in the output old search?
With the full version displayed now, there isn't more information in the old search output. What I think is that if you are not absolutely sure about what you are doing you shouldn't leave the area of supported packages.
IV.
We are in the area of unsupported packages here where the page shows a clear warning that there are risks.
We are in a area where nether zypper nor YaST nor YaST2>Software Management nor the wiki will give any information before adding even more repositories to the package management of the installed system.
Is it necessary to reduce the information of the output in this area in order to make http://software.opensuse.org/ better for a task that could be done with zypper or YaST or YaST2>Software Management or the wiki like searching for packages in the Main and Update repositories of your recently installed version of openSUSE?
Ok, I see your point here, but is your complain still about the shortened version number or something else? [...]
But if a layout with less information is the price to pay for getting results for openSUSE 12.1 and not openSUSE Tumbleweed if someone searches for packages for openSUSE 12.1 than this improvement will probably be even worth the lost of information in the new display of the results.
I don't want you to lose information that you need from the old search.
Regards Martin
[1] Is the 'thing' on http://software.opensuse.org/search/find a new search engine/an other search engine ( https://trello.com/card/fork-the-ubuntu-software-center-and-make-it-a-projec... makes me suspect this) or only a new layout/presentation of the output of the old search engine?
It's something in between. It uses the obs api as the old search as base for the search results, but also uses appstream data that the obs now generates and screenshots from debshots. More enhancements are planned by adding browsing apps through categories (appstore), and connecting to a comment and rating server. The appstream project is a cross distribution effort, more at: http://distributions.freedesktop.org/wiki/AppStream
[2] "Unsupported" is not a term with a clear meaning - if the packages from the community and home repositories are "unsupported" than the conclusion is possible and in my view likely to make (as a argumentum e contrario) that the packages from the other repositories are supported. But who wants to give, grant or guaranty any support to that packages and in what way and extent? Do for example the packages from the Evergreen repositories really need more more warnings than the packages from the Tumbleweed repositories? I think that here was made a simplifiation of not simple things and this will probably lead to more confusion.
Supported means that package updates to those repos go through a review and that bugfixes and security updates are done. That doesn't mean that community packages are out of that list, because every package maintainer can request inclusion in Factory, Tumbleweed or Evergreen. You are right, we probably should add Evergreen to the list of supported distros.
[3] If I recall my last try to use that "new search"[1] I was only seeing something like ""8.027.00 ..." instead of the full filenames. If so there might be an improvement of the output or the layout.
Greetings -- Thomas Schmidt (tom [at] opensuse.org) openSUSE Boosters Team "Don't Panic", Douglas Adams (11.03.1952 - 11.05.2001) -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-buildservice+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse-buildservice+owner@opensuse.org
Am 20.03.2012 13:48, schrieb Thomas Schmidt:
On 20.03.2012 10:52, Martin Seidler wrote:
Am 19.03.2012 12:13, schrieb Thomas Schmidt:
On 18.03.2012 15:45, Martin Seidler wrote:
Am 18.03.2012 00:37, schrieb Thomas Schmidt:
On 16.03.2012 20:44, Martin Seidler wrote: [...]
>>> * Thomas Schmidt<tom@opensuse.org> [03-12-12 11:44]: >>>> Please check the new search at: [1] >>>> http://software.opensuse.org/search/find >>>> and see an example app page here: >>>> http://software.opensuse.org/package/kopete >>>> >>>> Please let me know what you think of the current state. [...] Trying to follow you new introduced case I will not see name of the file but "8.024.00_k3.0.7_45". Something like that would suffice in my point of view.
I made some more space for the version number. It should be readable now. [...] Seems to work with the "8.027.00_k3.1.0_1.2" from "home:TheTiger" now, too.
Thanks for this change, the explaining and especially for your patience, Tom. Ciao Martin -- openSUSE profile: https://users.opensuse.org/show/pistazienfresser Martin Seidler KIRCHSTR. 11, 65843 SULZBACH (TAUNUS) FON (priv.): +49 6196 40 20 283 Ø FON (comm.): +49 6196 59 236 23 Ø FAX: +49 6196 59 236 24 Ø -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-buildservice+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse-buildservice+owner@opensuse.org
Am Montag, 12. März 2012, 16:41:26 schrieb Thomas Schmidt:
Hi, thanks for your feedback regarding our mockups for the software search. We implemented a working prototype which now also contains a search form.
Please check the new search at: http://software.opensuse.org/search/find and see an example app page here: http://software.opensuse.org/package/kopete
Please let me know what you think of the current state.
The OBS link is missing... Also the preview to the screenshot has either a bad resolution or is too large. That makes IMHO a bad first impression (with your kopete example). So either make it smaller (that would provide the space for the OBS link;) or display it with higher resolution... -- Adrian Schroeter SUSE Linux Products GmbH email: adrian@suse.de -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-buildservice+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse-buildservice+owner@opensuse.org
On 12.03.2012 20:32, Adrian Schröter wrote:
Am Montag, 12. März 2012, 16:41:26 schrieb Thomas Schmidt:
Hi, thanks for your feedback regarding our mockups for the software search. We implemented a working prototype which now also contains a search form.
Please check the new search at: http://software.opensuse.org/search/find and see an example app page here: http://software.opensuse.org/package/kopete
Please let me know what you think of the current state.
The OBS link is missing...
The obs project/package is linked from the project name at the beginning of each download line. It was not correctly linking the sourcepackage, I fixed that now.
Also the preview to the screenshot has either a bad resolution or is too large. That makes IMHO a bad first impression (with your kopete example). So either make it smaller (that would provide the space for the OBS link;) or display it with higher resolution...
Kopete is a bad example with it's upright screenshot. I've set a fixed height now. Greetings -- Thomas Schmidt (tom [at] opensuse.org) openSUSE Boosters Team "Don't Panic", Douglas Adams (1952 - 11.05.2001) -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-buildservice+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse-buildservice+owner@opensuse.org
This really looks great! Beside the other issue reported as part of this thread I see a strange order or available architectures. Look at http://software.openSUSE.org/package/samba and uncollaps openSUSE 12.1. Then you'll see a line like this official 3.6.3 32bit Source 64bit 1 Click Install I suggest to move the link to the source rpm after the list of available architectures. Maybe with some extra space. I see two reason to do this: a) The majority of users don't care about the source rpm. b) We might in the future or already see more architectures (ppc*, arm?). Cheers, Lars -- Lars Müller [ˈlaː(r)z ˈmʏlɐ] Samba Team SUSE Linux, Maxfeldstraße 5, 90409 Nürnberg, Germany
On 14.03.2012 12:57, Lars Müller wrote:
This really looks great!
Beside the other issue reported as part of this thread I see a strange order or available architectures.
Look at http://software.openSUSE.org/package/samba and uncollaps openSUSE 12.1. Then you'll see a line like this
official 3.6.3 32bit Source 64bit 1 Click Install
I suggest to move the link to the source rpm after the list of available architectures. Maybe with some extra space.
I see two reason to do this:
a) The majority of users don't care about the source rpm. b) We might in the future or already see more architectures (ppc*, arm?).
Beside many other changes, I moved the source link to the right now. Greetings -- Thomas Schmidt (tom [at] opensuse.org) openSUSE Boosters Team "Don't Panic", Douglas Adams (11.03.1952 - 11.05.2001) -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-buildservice+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse-buildservice+owner@opensuse.org
On 03/15/2012 06:22 PM, Thomas Schmidt wrote:
Beside many other changes, I moved the source link to the right now.
Would it be possible to check if the package in question for the official version has an official update available and if so provide that as the install option rather than giving the link to the official version only, resulting the user installs it later on via YOU or zypper or by whatever means the user has to update the package ie. double work. Why not provide the user with the updated package, if such exists in the beginning, and maintain an uptodate system while easing the workload of the end user. Togan -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-buildservice+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse-buildservice+owner@opensuse.org
On 15.03.2012 18:54, Togan Muftuoglu wrote:
On 03/15/2012 06:22 PM, Thomas Schmidt wrote:
Beside many other changes, I moved the source link to the right now.
Would it be possible to check if the package in question for the official version has an official update available and if so provide that as the install option rather than giving the link to the official version only, resulting the user installs it later on via YOU or zypper or by whatever means the user has to update the package ie. double work.
Why not provide the user with the updated package, if such exists in the beginning, and maintain an uptodate system while easing the workload of the end user.
Hi Togan, it's already implemented like that. Check for example the kernel-default package: http://software.opensuse.org/package/kernel-default It will install 3.1.9 from the Update repo, while the 12.1 release had 3.1.0. Doesn't that work for you? Greetings -- Thomas Schmidt (tom [at] opensuse.org) openSUSE Boosters Team "Don't Panic", Douglas Adams (1952 - 11.05.2001) -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-buildservice+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse-buildservice+owner@opensuse.org
On 03/16/2012 08:00 AM, Thomas Schmidt wrote:
Hi Togan, it's already implemented like that. Check for example the kernel-default package: http://software.opensuse.org/package/kernel-default It will install 3.1.9 from the Update repo, while the 12.1 release had 3.1.0.
Doesn't that work for you?
http://software.opensuse.org/package/shorewall shows <http://software.opensuse.org/ymp/openSUSE:12.1/standard/shorewall.ymp?base=openSUSE%3A12.1> yet there is an update <http://download.opensuse.org/update/12.1/noarch/shorewall-4.4.24.1-2.3.1.noarch.rpm> Togan PS. and please send the replies to list only or use a mail client that does honor follow-upto -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-buildservice+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse-buildservice+owner@opensuse.org
On 16.03.2012 09:06, Togan Muftuoglu wrote:
On 03/16/2012 08:00 AM, Thomas Schmidt wrote:
Hi Togan, it's already implemented like that. Check for example the kernel-default package: http://software.opensuse.org/package/kernel-default It will install 3.1.9 from the Update repo, while the 12.1 release had 3.1.0.
Doesn't that work for you?
http://software.opensuse.org/package/shorewall
shows <http://software.opensuse.org/ymp/openSUSE:12.1/standard/shorewall.ymp?base=openSUSE%3A12.1>
yet there is an update <http://download.opensuse.org/update/12.1/noarch/shorewall-4.4.24.1-2.3.1.noarch.rpm>
Togan
PS. and please send the replies to list only or use a mail client that does honor follow-upto
That's interesting, thanks for finding out. Maybe there is an inconsistency due to the current changes in update handling in the obs. The api result: https://api.opensuse.org/search/published/binary/id?match=%40name+%3D+%27sho... doesn't contain the package from the openSUSE:12.1:Update project. Maybe an obs expert can comment here ;-) Greetings -- Thomas Schmidt (tom [at] opensuse.org) openSUSE Boosters Team "Don't Panic", Douglas Adams (11.03.1952 - 11.05.2001) -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-buildservice+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse-buildservice+owner@opensuse.org
On 03/12/2012 05:41 PM, Thomas Schmidt wrote:
Hi, thanks for your feedback regarding our mockups for the software search. We implemented a working prototype which now also contains a search form.
Please check the new search at: http://software.opensuse.org/search/find and see an example app page here: http://software.opensuse.org/package/kopete
Please let me know what you think of the current state.
Greetings
My 10c I am trying to find why libltdl-devel isn't in 11.4 and found it's output a lot easier to use than the old one. Didn't find any bugs though. Now I'm off to the libtool package to examine the changes, would be a nice addition to view the changes direct from the search ui. Dave -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-buildservice+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse-buildservice+owner@opensuse.org
On Mon, Mar 12, 2012 at 12:41 PM, Thomas Schmidt <tom@opensuse.org> wrote:
Please check the new search at: http://software.opensuse.org/search/find and see an example app page here: http://software.opensuse.org/package/kopete
Please let me know what you think of the current state.
Tried to search a package of mine[0]: Works fine if you include unsupported packages, but what's weird is that it's not showing all distributions. In particular, deb-based distributions are missing. If I search for Debian, it says it cannot find it, when you can see here[1] that it's there. [0] http://software.opensuse.org/package/vegastrike?search_term=vegastrike [1] https://build.opensuse.org/project/monitor?project=home%3Aklaussfreire%3Adeb... -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-buildservice+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse-buildservice+owner@opensuse.org
On 20.03.2012 18:41, Claudio Freire wrote:
On Mon, Mar 12, 2012 at 12:41 PM, Thomas Schmidt <tom@opensuse.org> wrote:
Please check the new search at: http://software.opensuse.org/search/find and see an example app page here: http://software.opensuse.org/package/kopete
Please let me know what you think of the current state.
Tried to search a package of mine[0]:
Works fine if you include unsupported packages, but what's weird is that it's not showing all distributions. In particular, deb-based distributions are missing. If I search for Debian, it says it cannot find it, when you can see here[1] that it's there.
Hi Claudio, thanks for checking this. That bug is fixed now. Greetings
[0] http://software.opensuse.org/package/vegastrike?search_term=vegastrike [1] https://build.opensuse.org/project/monitor?project=home%3Aklaussfreire%3Adeb...
-- Thomas Schmidt (tom [at] opensuse.org) openSUSE Boosters Team "Don't Panic", Douglas Adams (1952 - 11.05.2001) -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-buildservice+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse-buildservice+owner@opensuse.org
On Mon, 12 Mar 2012 16:41:26 +0100, Thomas Schmidt wrote:
Hi, thanks for your feedback regarding our mockups for the software search. We implemented a working prototype which now also contains a search form.
Please check the new search at: http://software.opensuse.org/search/find and see an example app page here: http://software.opensuse.org/package/kopete
Please let me know what you think of the current state.
I'd like to see the options to download a package without installing it - I wasn't able to find that in my quick test just now. Jim -- Jim Henderson Please keep on-topic replies on the list so everyone benefits -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-buildservice+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse-buildservice+owner@opensuse.org
On Sat, Mar 24, 2012 at 8:47 AM, Jim Henderson <hendersj@gmail.com> wrote:
On Mon, 12 Mar 2012 16:41:26 +0100, Thomas Schmidt wrote:
Hi, thanks for your feedback regarding our mockups for the software search. We implemented a working prototype which now also contains a search form.
Please check the new search at: http://software.opensuse.org/search/find and see an example app page here: http://software.opensuse.org/package/kopete
Please let me know what you think of the current state.
I'd like to see the options to download a package without installing it - I wasn't able to find that in my quick test just now.
Jim
-- Jim Henderson Please keep on-topic replies on the list so everyone benefits
-- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-buildservice+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse-buildservice+owner@opensuse.org
Hi, how about writing a blog post on lizards.opensuse.org and publish it on Phoronix? I began a forum discussion here: http://forums.opensuse.org/forums/english/other-forums/community-fun/general... PS: I think we have some disadvantages about broadcasting our brilliant ideas to the outside world. Some community fans even think it's Ubuntu's contribution for plugging-in printers/mobiles then automatically searching & installing their drivers, which actually is our collaboration with Fedora people. -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-buildservice+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse-buildservice+owner@opensuse.org
On 24.03.2012 08:27, Marguerite Su wrote:
On Sat, Mar 24, 2012 at 8:47 AM, Jim Henderson <hendersj@gmail.com> wrote:
On Mon, 12 Mar 2012 16:41:26 +0100, Thomas Schmidt wrote:
Hi, thanks for your feedback regarding our mockups for the software search. We implemented a working prototype which now also contains a search form.
Please check the new search at: http://software.opensuse.org/search/find and see an example app page here: http://software.opensuse.org/package/kopete
Please let me know what you think of the current state.
I'd like to see the options to download a package without installing it - I wasn't able to find that in my quick test just now.
Jim
-- Jim Henderson Please keep on-topic replies on the list so everyone benefits
-- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-buildservice+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse-buildservice+owner@opensuse.org
Hi, how about writing a blog post on lizards.opensuse.org and publish it on Phoronix?
I began a forum discussion here:
http://forums.opensuse.org/forums/english/other-forums/community-fun/general...
PS: I think we have some disadvantages about broadcasting our brilliant ideas to the outside world. Some community fans even think it's Ubuntu's contribution for plugging-in printers/mobiles then automatically searching & installing their drivers, which actually is our collaboration with Fedora people.
Hi Marguerite, thanks for pushing it to the forums! I thin Jos also wanted to write a blogpost about it, and I will do that too once it's live. Greetings -- Thomas Schmidt (tom [at] opensuse.org) openSUSE Boosters Team "Don't Panic", Douglas Adams (1952 - 11.05.2001) -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-buildservice+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse-buildservice+owner@opensuse.org
On Mon, Mar 26, 2012 at 2:25 PM, Thomas Schmidt <tom@opensuse.org> wrote:
On 24.03.2012 08:27, Marguerite Su wrote:
On Sat, Mar 24, 2012 at 8:47 AM, Jim Henderson <hendersj@gmail.com> wrote:
On Mon, 12 Mar 2012 16:41:26 +0100, Thomas Schmidt wrote:
Hi, thanks for your feedback regarding our mockups for the software search. We implemented a working prototype which now also contains a search form.
Please check the new search at: http://software.opensuse.org/search/find and see an example app page here: http://software.opensuse.org/package/kopete
Please let me know what you think of the current state.
I'd like to see the options to download a package without installing it - I wasn't able to find that in my quick test just now.
Jim
-- Jim Henderson Please keep on-topic replies on the list so everyone benefits
-- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-buildservice+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse-buildservice+owner@opensuse.org
Hi, how about writing a blog post on lizards.opensuse.org and publish it on Phoronix?
I began a forum discussion here:
http://forums.opensuse.org/forums/english/other-forums/community-fun/general...
PS: I think we have some disadvantages about broadcasting our brilliant ideas to the outside world. Some community fans even think it's Ubuntu's contribution for plugging-in printers/mobiles then automatically searching & installing their drivers, which actually is our collaboration with Fedora people.
Hi Marguerite, thanks for pushing it to the forums! I thin Jos also wanted to write a blogpost about it, and I will do that too once it's live.
Greetings
-- Thomas Schmidt (tom [at] opensuse.org) openSUSE Boosters Team "Don't Panic", Douglas Adams (1952 - 11.05.2001) -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-buildservice+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse-buildservice+owner@opensuse.org
Hi, I saw this thread alive again. I have one question: how the screenshots are generated? I checked kopete (it's the example obs people gave us), but no such screenshots found in OBS. so can you tell us how such screenshots are made and updated? then we can start working by shooting our software...because it's really hard work for you OBS people shooting 4000+ packages. -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-buildservice+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse-buildservice+owner@opensuse.org
On 10.04.2012 18:20, Marguerite Su wrote:
On Mon, Mar 26, 2012 at 2:25 PM, Thomas Schmidt<tom@opensuse.org> wrote:
On 24.03.2012 08:27, Marguerite Su wrote:
On Sat, Mar 24, 2012 at 8:47 AM, Jim Henderson<hendersj@gmail.com> wrote:
On Mon, 12 Mar 2012 16:41:26 +0100, Thomas Schmidt wrote:
Hi, thanks for your feedback regarding our mockups for the software search. We implemented a working prototype which now also contains a search form.
Please check the new search at: http://software.opensuse.org/search/find and see an example app page here: http://software.opensuse.org/package/kopete
Please let me know what you think of the current state.
I'd like to see the options to download a package without installing it - I wasn't able to find that in my quick test just now.
Jim
-- Jim Henderson Please keep on-topic replies on the list so everyone benefits
-- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-buildservice+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse-buildservice+owner@opensuse.org
Hi, how about writing a blog post on lizards.opensuse.org and publish it on Phoronix?
I began a forum discussion here:
http://forums.opensuse.org/forums/english/other-forums/community-fun/general...
PS: I think we have some disadvantages about broadcasting our brilliant ideas to the outside world. Some community fans even think it's Ubuntu's contribution for plugging-in printers/mobiles then automatically searching& installing their drivers, which actually is our collaboration with Fedora people.
Hi Marguerite, thanks for pushing it to the forums! I thin Jos also wanted to write a blogpost about it, and I will do that too once it's live.
Greetings
-- Thomas Schmidt (tom [at] opensuse.org) openSUSE Boosters Team "Don't Panic", Douglas Adams (1952 - 11.05.2001) -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-buildservice+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse-buildservice+owner@opensuse.org
Hi, I saw this thread alive again.
I have one question: how the screenshots are generated?
I checked kopete (it's the example obs people gave us), but no such screenshots found in OBS. so can you tell us how such screenshots are made and updated? then we can start working by shooting our software...because it's really hard work for you OBS people shooting 4000+ packages.
The shown screenshots are currently fetched from screenshots.debian.net. It's running thedebshots software, that is in the process of beeing extended to serve opensuse specific screenshots, too. But right now it can only serve screenshots of packages that are also available for debian. You can upload new ones at: http://screenshots.debian.net/upload Greetings -- Thomas Schmidt (tom [at] opensuse.org) openSUSE Boosters Team "Don't Panic", Douglas Adams (11.03.1952 - 11.05.2001) -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-buildservice+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse-buildservice+owner@opensuse.org
On 24.03.2012 01:47, Jim Henderson wrote:
On Mon, 12 Mar 2012 16:41:26 +0100, Thomas Schmidt wrote:
Hi, thanks for your feedback regarding our mockups for the software search. We implemented a working prototype which now also contains a search form.
Please check the new search at: http://software.opensuse.org/search/find and see an example app page here: http://software.opensuse.org/package/kopete
Please let me know what you think of the current state.
I'd like to see the options to download a package without installing it - I wasn't able to find that in my quick test just now.
Hi Jim, to download a package, click on 'more versions', choose your distribution and use the rpm links like 32 Bit, 64 Bit. Greetings -- Thomas Schmidt (tom [at] opensuse.org) openSUSE Boosters Team "Don't Panic", Douglas Adams (1952 - 11.05.2001) -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-buildservice+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse-buildservice+owner@opensuse.org
Quoting Thomas Schmidt <tom@opensuse.org>:
Hi, thanks for your feedback regarding our mockups for the software search. We implemented a working prototype which now also contains a search form.
Please check the new search at: http://software.opensuse.org/search/find and see an example app page here: http://software.opensuse.org/package/kopete
Please let me know what you think of the current state.
Thomas, I see that 'Factory' representation seems to have an issue... http://software.opensuse.org/package/shotwell?search_term=shotwell For example lists Factory, but only unsupported packages, of which none is openSUSE:Factory (if supported or not is questionable, but it for sure should be part of the list). Also, the results should probably be sorted by some heuristic (be it version numbers, 'devel projects first' (the devel project of openSUSE:Factory/shotwell can be read from the package meta data.. there is a devel entry per package). Currently it looks like 'alpha sorted in reverse'.. (X/G/h) Dominique -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-buildservice+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse-buildservice+owner@opensuse.org
On 26.03.2012 13:28, Dominique Leuenberger wrote:
Quoting Thomas Schmidt <tom@opensuse.org>:
Hi, thanks for your feedback regarding our mockups for the software search. We implemented a working prototype which now also contains a search form.
Please check the new search at: http://software.opensuse.org/search/find and see an example app page here: http://software.opensuse.org/package/kopete
Please let me know what you think of the current state.
Thomas,
I see that 'Factory' representation seems to have an issue...
http://software.opensuse.org/package/shotwell?search_term=shotwell
For example lists Factory, but only unsupported packages, of which none is openSUSE:Factory (if supported or not is questionable, but it for sure should be part of the list).
Hi Dominique, the missing 'official' package link to Factory is a known bug of the obs backend, but this should resolve itself once the backend is fixed which should happen soon according to the obs guys :-)
Also, the results should probably be sorted by some heuristic (be it version numbers, 'devel projects first' (the devel project of openSUSE:Factory/shotwell can be read from the package meta data.. there is a devel entry per package).
Currently it looks like 'alpha sorted in reverse'.. (X/G/h)
You are right, we should get a better ordering in there and mark the devel project. Needs to check how big the overhead is to detect the devel project of each distribution. I added it to the TODO list. Greetings -- Thomas Schmidt (tom [at] opensuse.org) openSUSE Boosters Team "Don't Panic", Douglas Adams (11.03.1952 - 11.05.2001) -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-buildservice+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse-buildservice+owner@opensuse.org
participants (16)
-
Adrian Schröter -
Claudio Freire -
Dave Plater -
Dominique Leuenberger -
Dominique Leuenberger a.k.a DimStar -
Greg Freemyer -
Jim Henderson -
Jos Poortvliet -
Lars Müller -
Ludwig Nussel -
Marcus Meissner -
Marguerite Su -
Martin Seidler -
Patrick Shanahan -
Thomas Schmidt -
Togan Muftuoglu