[opensuse-factory] openSUSE maintainer finder tool
Hi, during our Hackweek at SUSE I spent a day or two to improve my tool to help finding the maintainer for software in Factory, which comes in handy for bugzilla-screening (getting bugs to the right people). You can use the tool at http://maintainer.zq1.de/ You can give it command names, full filepath, or package names (exact matches (including case) only) If you want to run or extend it, the code is all open on https://github.com/bmwiedemann/susepkginfo and the databases can be fetched from http://aw.zq1.de/db.suse/ The actual maintainer information comes from OBS, so is always current. Ciao Bernhard M. -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-factory+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse-factory+owner@opensuse.org
On 10/29/2014 05:29 PM, Bernhard M. Wiedemann wrote:
You can give it command names, full filepath, or package names (exact matches (including case) only)
cool, it even finds the correct result for outlandish command names like '[' ;-) Thanks & have a nice day, Berny -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-factory+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse-factory+owner@opensuse.org
On Thursday 30 October 2014, Bernhard Voelker wrote:
On 10/29/2014 05:29 PM, Bernhard M. Wiedemann wrote:
You can give it command names, full filepath, or package names (exact matches (including case) only)
cool, it even finds the correct result for outlandish command names like '[' ;-)
But is does not seem to find ambiguous packages yet like awk -> mawk or gawk (update-alternatives) cu, Rudi -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-factory+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse-factory+owner@opensuse.org
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Am 30.10.2014 um 14:51 schrieb Ruediger Meier:
But is does not seem to find ambiguous packages yet like awk -> mawk or gawk
(update-alternatives)
Yes, it finds exactly one of the possible solutions. This is currently a known limitation from the DB design: https://github.com/bmwiedemann/susepkginfo/issues/1 Ciao Bernhard M. -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.19 (GNU/Linux) iEYEARECAAYFAlRVAjEACgkQSTYLOx37oWQvBwCeNgOTQl5a2bn98n8IiEmIR2Az UIQAmwQfItbC4daWGAq+TcGcZFCqHyIz =0Mbo -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-factory+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse-factory+owner@opensuse.org
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On 2014-10-30 14:51, Ruediger Meier wrote:
On Thursday 30 October 2014, Bernhard Voelker wrote:
On 10/29/2014 05:29 PM, Bernhard M. Wiedemann wrote:
You can give it command names, full filepath, or package names (exact matches (including case) only)
cool, it even finds the correct result for outlandish command names like '[' ;-)
But is does not seem to find ambiguous packages yet like awk -> mawk or gawk
(update-alternatives)
I fixed that old bug [1] recently :-) see https://maintainer.zq1.de/awk also did some improvements to the UI. Ciao Bernhard M. [1] https://github.com/bmwiedemann/susepkginfo/issues/1 -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2 iEYEARECAAYFAlZLFu4ACgkQSTYLOx37oWRT0ACgiJ/s1YsAYyLvchVy6I5g+/dG nU8AoIR/h2dY1/Nhwmmh+2SjEZuwFfpG =Y+py -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-factory+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse-factory+owner@opensuse.org
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On 29/10/14 17:29, Bernhard M. Wiedemann wrote:
Hi,
during our Hackweek at SUSE I spent a day or two to improve my tool to help finding the maintainer for software in Factory, which comes in handy for bugzilla-screening (getting bugs to the right people).
You can use the tool at http://maintainer.zq1.de/
one thing I forgot to mention since I parsed all those package databases, I noticed that openSUSE is rather on the low end of number of packages in the list of those active distributions that I found slackware 1328 entries voidlinux 6451 entries centos 7009 entries archlinux 8259 entries opensuse 8655 entries mageia 12839 entries altlinux 17621 entries fedora 17698 entries gentoo 18519 entries debian 23914 entries ubuntu 25417 entries There are some reasons I know of and probably some more 1. We dont always split off sub-packages and the count is for source-packages (at least for openSUSE - for some others it counts binary packages) 2. We are quick to drop packages that dont build. And sometimes that even breaks packages in devel projects because those usually just link to Factory 3. We dont bother submitting everything from devel projects. I see that a lot with the games repo, but I guess there are others containing useful software that is not in Factory for various reasons - - e.g. because we always want the latest version to be used everywhere and submitting maintenance-updates is not as easy as just telling people to use the extra repo. Maybe we should do something similar to the old Greg-K-H Tumbleweed where we create an overlay repo that only contains leaf packages in their latest stable version but that builds for all released openSUSE+SLE versions. That does not overlap with https://build.opensuse.org/project/show/openSUSE:Backports:SLE-12 because it only contains packages that are in Factory. Ciao Bernhard M. -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2 iEYEARECAAYFAlaU3ekACgkQSTYLOx37oWS1PACgkVqiio20t4oliFovXmBSPJks 9NQAniDvsxTdAoEk+QLkNWGDophHwqgC =82uF -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-factory+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse-factory+owner@opensuse.org
On Tuesday 2016-01-12 12:05, Bernhard M. Wiedemann wrote:
On 29/10/14 17:29, Bernhard M. Wiedemann wrote:
during our Hackweek at SUSE I spent a day or two to improve my tool to help finding the maintainer for software in Factory, which comes in handy for bugzilla-screening (getting bugs to the right people).
one thing I forgot to mention since I parsed all those package databases, I noticed that openSUSE is rather on the low end of number of packages in the list of those active distributions that I found
To have a fair comparison, you have to add the numbers from OBS as well. Just because Debian does not have the same repository structure concept and everything lands in "main" does not mean the quality is better.
slackware 1328 entries voidlinux 6451 entries centos 7009 entries archlinux 8259 entries opensuse 8655 entries mageia 12839 entries altlinux 17621 entries fedora 17698 entries gentoo 18519 entries debian 23914 entries ubuntu 25417 entries
qr/openSUSE_13.2/: Unique source package names: 32707 Unique binary package names: 63438 qr/openSUSE_(Factory|Tumbleweed)/: Unique source package names: 34891 Unique binary package names: 69367 -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-factory+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse-factory+owner@opensuse.org
Bernhard M. Wiedemann wrote:
one thing I forgot to mention since I parsed all those package databases, I noticed that openSUSE is rather on the low end of number of packages in the list of those active distributions that I found
slackware 1328 entries voidlinux 6451 entries centos 7009 entries archlinux 8259 entries opensuse 8655 entries mageia 12839 entries altlinux 17621 entries fedora 17698 entries gentoo 18519 entries debian 23914 entries ubuntu 25417 entries
IMO those numbers are not meaningful at all also because of the reasons you gave. Additionally you would have to compare the numbers of actively maintained packages. Ciao, Michael.
On 12 January 2016 at 12:05, Bernhard M. Wiedemann <bernhardout@lsmod.de> wrote:
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
On 29/10/14 17:29, Bernhard M. Wiedemann wrote:
Hi,
during our Hackweek at SUSE I spent a day or two to improve my tool to help finding the maintainer for software in Factory, which comes in handy for bugzilla-screening (getting bugs to the right people).
You can use the tool at http://maintainer.zq1.de/
one thing I forgot to mention since I parsed all those package databases, I noticed that openSUSE is rather on the low end of number of packages in the list of those active distributions that I found
slackware 1328 entries voidlinux 6451 entries centos 7009 entries archlinux 8259 entries opensuse 8655 entries mageia 12839 entries altlinux 17621 entries fedora 17698 entries gentoo 18519 entries debian 23914 entries ubuntu 25417 entries
While I wholeheartedly share the critique of these numbers provided already by Jan and Michael, I do have some comments about your conclusions which I still think are useful discussion points
There are some reasons I know of and probably some more
1. We dont always split off sub-packages and the count is for source-packages (at least for openSUSE - for some others it counts binary packages)
I do not see this a problem - If we find this the best way of maintaining our packages, we should keep doing it. Changing our development methods just to artificially increase our package count numbers would be stupid.
2. We are quick to drop packages that dont build. And sometimes that even breaks packages in devel projects because those usually just link to Factory
I also believe this is not a problem - if packages don't build, they should be fixed quickly. We could possibly do with better notifications/dashboards in this area to make it easier for maintainers to realise when their stuff is broken.
3. We dont bother submitting everything from devel projects. I see that a lot with the games repo, but I guess there are others containing useful software that is not in Factory for various reasons - - e.g. because we always want the latest version to be used everywhere and submitting maintenance-updates is not as easy as just telling people to use the extra repo.
I believe this to be a big problem. I support and want to strongly encourage any effort which decreases the diff between [Sum of Packages in Devel Projects] and [Sum of Packages in Tumbleweed]
Maybe we should do something similar to the old Greg-K-H Tumbleweed where we create an overlay repo that only contains leaf packages in their latest stable version but that builds for all released openSUSE+SLE versions. That does not overlap with https://build.opensuse.org/project/show/openSUSE:Backports:SLE-12 because it only contains packages that are in Factory.
I don't see how that fixes the issue. People need to submit their packages to Tumbleweed, submitting to some overlay repo is just going to be another step which people may or may not do, and I'd much rather see them take the steps to get their packages out of Devel hell and into our distributions properly. I'm surprised I have to remind the grandfather of openQA that just because something builds, doesn't mean it works; Our history with GregKH-style Tumbleweed showed that overlays are not inherently more maintainable or reliable than Modern Tumbleweed style rolling releases. Assured Quality comes from testing, and right now Tumbleweed is tested, no Devel Repo (and I assume no overlay repo) is. -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-factory+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse-factory+owner@opensuse.org
On Tue, 2016-01-12 at 13:30 +0100, Richard Brown wrote:
2. We are quick to drop packages that dont build. And sometimes that even breaks packages in devel projects because those usually just link to Factory
I also believe this is not a problem - if packages don't build, they should be fixed quickly. We could possibly do with better notifications/dashboards in this area to make it easier for maintainers to realise when their stuff is broken.
Note here: a package that does not build in openSUSE:Factory triggers emails to the people listed as maintainers with a personal notice to fix their packages... and we're not THAT fast in dropping non-building packages. We have packages that have not have successful builds for > 2 months Cheers, Dominique -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-factory+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse-factory+owner@opensuse.org
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On 12/01/16 13:30, Richard Brown wrote:
3. We dont bother submitting everything from devel projects. I see that a lot with the games repo, but I guess there are others containing useful software that is not in Factory for various reasons - - e.g. because we always want the latest version to be used everywhere and submitting maintenance-updates is not as easy as just telling people to use the extra repo.
I believe this to be a big problem. I support and want to strongly encourage any effort which decreases the diff between [Sum of Packages in Devel Projects] and [Sum of Packages in Tumbleweed]
Maybe we should do something similar to the old Greg-K-H Tumbleweed where we create an overlay repo that only contains leaf packages in their latest stable version but that builds for all released openSUSE+SLE versions. That does not overlap with https://build.opensuse.org/project/show/openSUSE:Backports:SLE-12
because it only contains packages that are in Factory.
I don't see how that fixes the issue. People need to submit their packages to Tumbleweed, submitting to some overlay repo is just going to be another step which people may or may not do, and I'd much rather see them take the steps to get their packages out of Devel hell and into our distributions properly.
I'm surprised I have to remind the grandfather of openQA that just because something builds, doesn't mean it works; Our history with GregKH-style Tumbleweed showed that overlays are not inherently more maintainable or reliable than Modern Tumbleweed style rolling releases. Assured Quality comes from testing, and right now Tumbleweed is tested, no Devel Repo (and I assume no overlay repo) is.
Those are leaf packages that are not very critical, so probably would not be covered by openQA even if they were in Factory. Yes, they might break once in a while, but since there is only one source-code (as opposed to differing versions for 13.1, 13.2, 42.1 and Factory), it would be a lot easier and faster to fix. The point is that there are probably fewer users and thus it makes sense to have a workflow that requires less effort for the maintainer. Or if we want to go without such a "Contrib" repo, and submit everything to Factory, we still want a Backports repo where we build all the new applications for older openSUSE versions, so that more people can use and test the new stuff. and I guess, if we really want to, we could still add a staging+openQA ontop of either such Contrib or Backports repo. Ciao Bernhard M. -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2 iEYEARECAAYFAlaWLFMACgkQSTYLOx37oWRhxgCgx7BuGlWltWM/YtA7QVZfMXeq Tj8AoI8Tk8w4EIt4fO9B29aebL82MBuA =wE4B -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-factory+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse-factory+owner@opensuse.org
On 13 January 2016 at 11:52, Bernhard M. Wiedemann <bernhardout@lsmod.de> wrote:
Those are leaf packages that are not very critical, so probably would not be covered by openQA even if they were in Factory. Yes, they might break once in a while, but since there is only one source-code (as opposed to differing versions for 13.1, 13.2, 42.1 and Factory), it would be a lot easier and faster to fix. The point is that there are probably fewer users and thus it makes sense to have a workflow that requires less effort for the maintainer.
Or if we want to go without such a "Contrib" repo, and submit everything to Factory, we still want a Backports repo where we build all the new applications for older openSUSE versions, so that more people can use and test the new stuff.
and I guess, if we really want to, we could still add a staging+openQA ontop of either such Contrib or Backports repo.
Ciao Bernhard M.
Then lets get all those packages you are considering into Tumbleweed first Then we can talk about the possibility of a 'contrib' repo for older distributions. I think there is a debate to had there whether a collection of untested, separately maintained packages is a good idea - even debian is slowly abolishing 'contrib' and moving everything to main. I think we should do the same, starting with Tumbleweed first -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-factory+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse-factory+owner@opensuse.org
Hi, Just registered to give my opinion on this, as I think its a very important topic. Currently I am suffering from this problem, as I need rust and elixir from devel repos. Also, currently am using utilities, editors for small utilities ( byobu, neovim, etc) , but put them in lower priority than opensuse tumbleweed repo. Even also, I am also using kde repo for more uptodate kde plasma versions, but i love the fact that if i want, i can go back to the stable old tumbleweed kde packages.
From one side it would be great if some packages were included in factory. But others, I would like to keep repos for different package configurations or more edge versions.
My question is, could it be possible for devel repo owners to ask for specific tumbleweed tests to run ? For example, the kde repo would run the kde tests available in tumbleweed ? To not only be opensuse factory/tumbleweed/leap that runs tests ? Thanks. PS: do i just reply to opensuse-factory or also include the senders in CC ? Sorry if spamming your mailbox. A quarta-feira, 13 de janeiro de 2016 13:24:16 WET Richard Brown escreveu:
On 13 January 2016 at 11:52, Bernhard M. Wiedemann <bernhardout@lsmod.de> wrote:
Those are leaf packages that are not very critical, so probably would not be covered by openQA even if they were in Factory. Yes, they might break once in a while, but since there is only one source-code (as opposed to differing versions for 13.1, 13.2, 42.1 and Factory), it would be a lot easier and faster to fix. The point is that there are probably fewer users and thus it makes sense to have a workflow that requires less effort for the maintainer.
Or if we want to go without such a "Contrib" repo, and submit everything to Factory, we still want a Backports repo where we build all the new applications for older openSUSE versions, so that more people can use and test the new stuff.
and I guess, if we really want to, we could still add a staging+openQA ontop of either such Contrib or Backports repo.
Ciao Bernhard M.
Then lets get all those packages you are considering into Tumbleweed first
Then we can talk about the possibility of a 'contrib' repo for older distributions. I think there is a debate to had there whether a collection of untested, separately maintained packages is a good idea - even debian is slowly abolishing 'contrib' and moving everything to main. I think we should do the same, starting with Tumbleweed first
-- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-factory+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse-factory+owner@opensuse.org
PS: do i just reply to opensuse-factory or also include the senders in CC ? Sorry if spamming your mailbox.
Normally your mail client should be setup to only reply to the mailing list most of the time the senders are on the ml so getting twice the mail is annoying. But it is not a golden rules, sometimes (rarely) external people can express or being invited to a thread. ;-) -- Bruno Friedmann Ioda-Net Sàrl www.ioda-net.ch openSUSE Member & Board, fsfe fellowship GPG KEY : D5C9B751C4653227 irc: tigerfoot -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-factory+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse-factory+owner@opensuse.org
On Tue, 2016-01-12 at 12:05 +0100, Bernhard M. Wiedemann wrote: <snip>
3. We dont bother submitting everything from devel projects. I see that a lot with the games repo, but I guess there are others containing useful software that is not in Factory for various reasons - e.g. because we always want the latest version to be used everywhere and submitting maintenance-updates is not as easy as just telling people to use the extra repo. Maybe we should do something similar to the old Greg-K-H Tumbleweed where we create an overlay repo that only contains leaf packages in their latest stable version but that builds for all released openSUSE+SLE versions. That does not overlap with https://build.opensuse.org/project/show/openSUSE:Backports:SLE-12 because it only contains packages that are in Factory.
I would love to see more devel packages in Factory/Tumbleweed for the added benefit of helping get them in Bacports. There are some on our "wishlist" that are building in devel projects even against SLE, but aren't yet in Factory. So I'm in interested in anything that can be done to help promote that step to Factory submission and acceptance. -Scott
participants (11)
-
Alexandre Pereira -
Bernhard M. Wiedemann -
Bernhard M. Wiedemann -
Bernhard Voelker -
Bruno Friedmann -
Dominique Leuenberger / DimStar -
Jan Engelhardt -
Michael Ströder -
Richard Brown -
Ruediger Meier -
Scott Bahling