[Slowroll] Proposal for use of stable packages
Hi team, I propose to use stable versions of packages in Slowroll and not development versions of some packages shipped by Tumbleweed. Reasons for request: - With the recent Slowroll release "20240803" applied on Aug 10, I had some issues earlier in the day with the scaling factor set to 200% on Gnome DE, cursor was abnormally large and blurry in GTK4 apps due to shipping an unstable version of gtk4 "4.15.4" when the current stable version is "4.14.4". I also had a DE crash later in the day that prompted me to rollback to an earlier snapshot, lock the gtk4 packages and upgrade the machine. Discussion regarding the same on gnome forums [0] and openSUSE forums [1]. - Another longstanding issue [2] I've faced personally in the course of development of Emoji-Copy extension for Gnome is with the libgda package using unstable version "6.0.0" while the stable version is "5.2.3". This causes a DE crash whenever libgda is used by an extension for simple tasks such as to read its own SQLite DB. I believe the root cause of these issues stem not from Gnome packaging in openSUSE but a general packaging issue for Tumbleweed which is incompatible with stable flavors like Slowroll, i.e., the use of unstable/dev packages instead of the current stable version. Further, I believe it's a fundamentally flawed approach to push unstable/dev branches to normal end-users (anyone other than active developers). If this proposal is aligned with the goals of the Slowroll project, please let me know how I can help out. [0]: https://discourse.gnome.org/t/abnormally-large-mouse-pointer-in-gnome-apps-s... [1]: https://forums.opensuse.org/t/tw-slowroll-shipping-unstable-version-of-packa... [2]: https://bugzilla.suse.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1219970 Kind regards, Pavin Joseph.
On 11.08.2024 08:47, Pavin Joseph via openSUSE Factory wrote:
Hi team,
I propose to use stable versions of packages in Slowroll and not development versions of some packages shipped by Tumbleweed.
Reasons for request: - With the recent Slowroll release "20240803" applied on Aug 10, I had some issues earlier in the day with the scaling factor set to 200% on Gnome DE, cursor was abnormally large and blurry in GTK4 apps due to shipping an unstable version of gtk4 "4.15.4" when the current stable version is "4.14.4". I also had a DE crash later in the day that prompted me to rollback to an earlier snapshot, lock the gtk4 packages and upgrade the machine. Discussion regarding the same on gnome forums [0] and openSUSE forums [1].
It is tempest in a teapot. This is already fixed in Factory and if bad version slipped into Slowroll, you just need to submit update. https://build.opensuse.org/projects/openSUSE:Factory/packages/gtk4/files/000...
On 11/08/2024 08.09, Andrei Borzenkov wrote:
On 11.08.2024 08:47, Pavin Joseph via openSUSE Factory wrote:
prompted me to rollback to an earlier snapshot, lock the gtk4 packages and upgrade the machine. Discussion regarding the same on gnome forums [0] and openSUSE forums [1].
It is tempest in a teapot. This is already fixed in Factory and if bad version slipped into Slowroll, you just need to submit update.
https://build.opensuse.org/projects/openSUSE:Factory/packages/gtk4/files/000...
It was already automatically submitted by the slowrollbot ~30h ago: https://build.opensuse.org/package/show/openSUSE:Slowroll/gtk4.2024081022560...
On Sun, Aug 11, 2024 at 1:57 AM Pavin Joseph via openSUSE Factory <factory@lists.opensuse.org> wrote:
Hi team,
I propose to use stable versions of packages in Slowroll and not development versions of some packages shipped by Tumbleweed.
Reasons for request: - With the recent Slowroll release "20240803" applied on Aug 10, I had some issues earlier in the day with the scaling factor set to 200% on Gnome DE, cursor was abnormally large and blurry in GTK4 apps due to shipping an unstable version of gtk4 "4.15.4" when the current stable version is "4.14.4". I also had a DE crash later in the day that prompted me to rollback to an earlier snapshot, lock the gtk4 packages and upgrade the machine. Discussion regarding the same on gnome forums [0] and openSUSE forums [1].
- Another longstanding issue [2] I've faced personally in the course of development of Emoji-Copy extension for Gnome is with the libgda package using unstable version "6.0.0" while the stable version is "5.2.3". This causes a DE crash whenever libgda is used by an extension for simple tasks such as to read its own SQLite DB.
I believe the root cause of these issues stem not from Gnome packaging in openSUSE but a general packaging issue for Tumbleweed which is incompatible with stable flavors like Slowroll, i.e., the use of unstable/dev packages instead of the current stable version. Further, I believe it's a fundamentally flawed approach to push unstable/dev branches to normal end-users (anyone other than active developers).
If this proposal is aligned with the goals of the Slowroll project, please let me know how I can help out.
Of your two packages, only one of them was truly a development release: gtk4 at 4.15.4. The libgda 6.0.0 release was not an "unstable" version, but in fact a new stable release series. And at least in the case of the gtk4 release, there's already a fix in Tumbleweed that has to be pulled back into Slowroll. https://build.opensuse.org/request/show/1191428 While yes, it does not make sense to ship unstable versions of the GNOME library stack (as they do not promise API/ABI stability and can cause headaches in general), I think the larger point to address here is that Slowroll is intended to be something distinct from Tumbleweed. That is not the case. The genesis of Slowroll is from the fears that openSUSE Leap would cease to exist, which ultimately bore out to not be true. Slowroll itself is an incremental step toward regular release openSUSE in the form of a Tumbleweed snapshot that is maintained for more than a few days (for something like three months instead). It is *not* fundamentally different from Tumbleweed other than it exists longer. I also want to take issue with the idea that we would only ship "stable" releases as if that fixes everything. It doesn't really. Sometimes a package goes years without a "stable release" and we *do* need to ship so-called "development" or "unstable" releases so things work at all. This is a judgement call with every packager, regardless of the distribution. Sometimes that can be annoying: for example, openSUSE often ships git snapshots of things that SUSE or openSUSE makes instead of "stable releases" despite the general rule against it because they feel it makes more sense. You only would notice if something broke as a result. But since it rarely does for a variety of reasons, you don't notice it. -- 真実はいつも一つ!/ Always, there's only one truth!
On 8/11/24 11:49 AM, Neal Gompa wrote:
Of your two packages, only one of them was truly a development release: gtk4 at 4.15.4. The libgda 6.0.0 release was not an "unstable" version, but in fact a new stable release series.
That's weird, I was looking at their website [0] which I guess wasn't updated. What further threw me off was Arch and Void shipping the 5.x series still [1].
I also want to take issue with the idea that we would only ship "stable" releases as if that fixes everything. It doesn't really. Sometimes a package goes years without a "stable release" and we *do* need to ship so-called "development" or "unstable" releases so things work at all.
Wouldn't it be better if the package maintainer patched the stable version or dropped the package from the repos if upstream is not maintaining or updating it? [0]: https://www.gnome-db.org/Roadmap [1]: https://pkgs.org/download/libgda Pavin.
On Sun, Aug 11, 2024 at 1:20 PM Pavin Joseph via openSUSE Factory <factory@lists.opensuse.org> wrote:
On 8/11/24 11:49 AM, Neal Gompa wrote:
Of your two packages, only one of them was truly a development release: gtk4 at 4.15.4. The libgda 6.0.0 release was not an "unstable" version, but in fact a new stable release series.
That's weird, I was looking at their website [0] which I guess wasn't updated. What further threw me off was Arch and Void shipping the 5.x series still [1].
pkgs.org and repology only tell you what everyone else is doing, it doesn't say much about what upstream does. If everyone else doesn't notice, then they don't upgrade either.
I also want to take issue with the idea that we would only ship "stable" releases as if that fixes everything. It doesn't really. Sometimes a package goes years without a "stable release" and we *do* need to ship so-called "development" or "unstable" releases so things work at all.
Wouldn't it be better if the package maintainer patched the stable version or dropped the package from the repos if upstream is not maintaining or updating it?
Sometimes it's easy to do that and so we can do it, but sometimes it's not. Sometimes there's just not much delta so the difference between patching vs a snapshot is perceptive rather than substantial. It just depends. -- 真実はいつも一つ!/ Always, there's only one truth!
On 11/08/2024 07.47, Pavin Joseph via openSUSE Factory wrote:
Hi team,
I propose to use stable versions of packages in Slowroll and not development versions of some packages shipped by Tumbleweed.
Hi Pavin, I'm afraid, that is not so easy. Technology-wide, Slowroll is based on a regular (currently monthly) snapshot from Factory and if Factory has a certain version, it will appear in Slowroll some weeks later. E.g. the 20240803 TW snapshot came to Slowroll on 2024-08-09 In principle, OBS would support updating on a per-package basis, but doing that for 15000 packages, while avoiding excessive rebuilds is tricky. Also by picking different combinations of packages you can discover new integration issues that neither Leap nor Tumbleweed have ever seen. And we don't have openQA tests for Slowroll, yet. We can do some improvements that allow automation to keep the manual workload manageable. I have roughly 2400 minutes available per week and that is not enough to manually check 15000 packages. Ciao Bernhard M.
participants (4)
-
Andrei Borzenkov
-
Bernhard M. Wiedemann
-
Neal Gompa
-
Pavin Joseph