[opensuse-factory] Tumbleweed - Review of the week 2020/26
Dear Tumbleweed users and hackers, Week 26, aka half of the year, is over. But as we all know, Tumbleweed does not care much about the weather, the temperatures, or the season at all. It only cares for its contributors to have fun – at any given moment. So, week 26 has seen 3 snapshots (0618, 0621, and 0622). The snapshots contained these changes: * VLC 3.0.11 * KDE Plasma 5.19.1 * Linux kernel 5.7.2 * LibreOffice 7.0 beta2 (please report bugs if you see regressions) The staging projects are filled with these relevant changes: * Linux kernel 5.7.5 * KDE Plasma 5.19.2 * systemd 245.6: the maintainer started adding the minor release number to the package version to make it clearer, what the openSUSE package is based on * LibreOffice 7.0 will enable skia * openSSL 3.0 * RPM change: %{_libexecdir} is being changed to /usr/libexec. This exposes quite a lot of packages that abuse %{_libexecdir} and fail to build Cheers, Dominique
Hi, On Fri, 2020-06-26 at 14:27 +0200, Dominique Leuenberger / DimStar wrote:
Dear Tumbleweed users and hackers,
The snapshots contained these changes:
* LibreOffice 7.0 beta2 (please report bugs if you see regressions)
I would strongly urge the LibreOffice packagers and you, as the release manager for TW, to reconsider shipping beta quality LO for an otherwise stable, workable TW system. There are numerous issues with the 7.0 beta2 version [1], [2], [3] (several more that I haven't yet had the time to make reports about) which taken together have quite severely set back my preparations for LO Impress based presentations I have been working on. I can live with RC-0 versions that became a regularity on TW, but shipping pre-RC quality software when there is at least one well-supported stable upstream release should be a hard no-no on TW (perhaps we need to enshrine this in some form of policy), no matter how usable and stable upstream believes their beta may be. If the developers want feedback and bug reports for beta quality releases, perhaps having the beta versions installable in parallel -- alongside the stable version -- would be an option. Thanks for the continuing set of updates and keeping TW moving, and best wishes. [1] https://bugzilla.opensuse.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1173404 [2] https://bugzilla.opensuse.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1173409 [3] https://bugzilla.opensuse.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1173410 -- Atri Bhattacharya Fri 26 Jun 14:35:25 CEST 2020 Sent from openSUSE Tumbleweed on my laptop. -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-factory+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse-factory+owner@opensuse.org
Hi Atri, On Fri, 2020-06-26 at 15:04 +0200, Atri Bhattacharya wrote:
I would strongly urge the LibreOffice packagers and you, as the release manager for TW, to reconsider shipping beta quality LO for an otherwise stable, workable TW system. There are numerous issues with the 7.0 beta2 version [1], [2], [3] (several more that I haven't yet had the time to make reports about) which taken together have quite severely set back my preparations for LO Impress based presentations I have been working on. I can live with RC-0 versions that became a regularity on TW, but shipping pre-RC quality software when there is at least one well-supported stable upstream release should be a hard no-no on TW (perhaps we need to enshrine this in some form of policy), no matter how usable and stable upstream believes their beta may be.
Tomas and I just had a quick discussion about this and agreed to move forward with RCs (this is not the first beta of LO we had in TW - but apparenly one of the betas causing more trouble). Of course we have no guarantee that if you were not finding the bugs, if they'd be fixed in the final release :)
If the developers want feedback and bug reports for beta quality releases, perhaps having the beta versions installable in parallel -- alongside the stable version -- would be an option.
Thanks for the continuing set of updates and keeping TW moving, and best wishes.
[1] https://bugzilla.opensuse.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1173404 [2] https://bugzilla.opensuse.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1173409 [3] https://bugzilla.opensuse.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1173410
Would you mind filing those (and future ones) directly in LO's bug tracker? This could shorten the communication by a bit. Hope to get LO in 'shape' soon enough again. Cheers, Dominique
On Friday 2020-06-26 15:23, Dominique Leuenberger / DimStar wrote:
Of course we have no guarantee that if you were not finding the bugs, if they'd be fixed in the final release :)
Since it's all about perception, not finding bugs is considered the quality standard... of our time. -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-factory+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse-factory+owner@opensuse.org
On 2020-06-26 10:02 AM, Jan Engelhardt wrote:
Of course we have no guarantee that if you were not finding the bugs, if they'd be fixed in the final release:) Since it's all about perception, not finding bugs is considered the quality standard... of our time.
Of course, from Trump's perspective, testing causes bugs! ;-) -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-factory+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse-factory+owner@opensuse.org
On Fri, 2020-06-26 at 16:02 +0200, Jan Engelhardt wrote:
On Friday 2020-06-26 15:23, Dominique Leuenberger / DimStar wrote:
Of course we have no guarantee that if you were not finding the bugs, if they'd be fixed in the final release :)
Since it's all about perception, not finding bugs is considered the quality standard... of our time.
Indeed perception is important too: while I wouldn't go so far as to say it is all about perception, it may be difficult to convince regular users to use TW as their stable, working systems if it comes with beta- quality packages. Cheers, -- Atri Bhattacharya Fri 26 Jun 16:38:22 CEST 2020 Sent from openSUSE Tumbleweed on my laptop. -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-factory+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse-factory+owner@opensuse.org
On Fri, 2020-06-26 at 16:38 +0200, Atri Bhattacharya wrote:
On Fri, 2020-06-26 at 16:02 +0200, Jan Engelhardt wrote:
On Friday 2020-06-26 15:23, Dominique Leuenberger / DimStar wrote:
Of course we have no guarantee that if you were not finding the bugs, if they'd be fixed in the final release :)
Since it's all about perception, not finding bugs is considered the quality standard... of our time.
Indeed perception is important too: while I wouldn't go so far as to say it is all about perception, it may be difficult to convince regular users to use TW as their stable, working systems if it comes with beta- quality packages.
Sure - yet we can't really do a 'policy' of not having beta. There are packages in the distro that have been there for years - and are still called beta. Simply because some upstreams don't want to 'commit' calling it final. Just a very quick / dirty way:
zypper se -s | grep beta.*src-oss | emil | srcpackage | 2.1.0beta9-968.24 | noarch | src-oss | google-carlito-fonts | srcpackage | 1.1.03.beta1-3.14 | noarch | src-oss | hddtemp | srcpackage | 0.3_beta15_e16aed6-5.4 | noarch | src-oss | impressive | srcpackage | 0.13.0~beta1-1.1 | noarch | src-oss | libcaca | srcpackage | 0.99.beta19.git20171003-5.3 | noarch | src-oss | nodejs-packaging | srcpackage | 10.beta11-2.9 | noarch | src-oss | perl-Audio-RPLD | srcpackage | 0.007_0.1beta6-1.9 | noarch | src-oss | plexus-i18n | srcpackage | 1.0~beta10-1.5 | noarch | src-oss | premake4 | srcpackage | 4.4beta4-6.11 | noarch | src-oss | tibetan-machine-uni-fonts | srcpackage | 1.901-3.14 | noarch | src-oss | when-command | srcpackage | 0.9.12~beta5-1.6 | noarch | src-oss
And that's just the ones where beta rightfully figures in the version name. There are others that just call it 3.9x when they mean it shall be 4.0 someday (e.g. gtk4 - granted, there are intentionally no consumers to it yet; but just to show) So, in the end, we'll remain with the package maintainer's responsibility to decide when he considers a package 'stable for use'. There are cases whre it's mis-judged, there are cases where the maintainer was too pessimistic and there are cases where we got it right. Remember all the people that say you can't run a .0 version of anything? Cheers, Dominique
On Friday 2020-06-26 17:05, Dominique Leuenberger / DimStar wrote:
Remember all the people that say you can't run a .0 version of anything?
I think I know those people. They also don't like 13 or 4 (& 7). Yes my friends, 0 is the unlucky number of software, with 6 as a secondary. (Think IE 6, Perl 6, PHP 6, ...) Some skip it altogether in an attempt to sweep it under the rug. * first release of e.g. gcc is 10.1 * dracut-050, less-562, etc. use no subintegers at all, so problem "solved" that way. * then there's dates-as-a-version, 2020XXYY (or similar forms like 2020.XX) In practice though, projects falling under those three seem to be doing fine, so I'll give them that. -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-factory+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse-factory+owner@opensuse.org
Am Freitag, 26. Juni 2020, 17:05:15 CEST schrieb Dominique Leuenberger / DimStar:
Just a very quick / dirty way:
zypper se -s | grep beta.*src-oss
| emil | | srcpackage | 2.1.0beta9-968.24 | | noarch | src-oss google-carlito-fonts | | srcpackage | 1.1.03.beta1-3.14 | | noarch | src-oss hddtemp | | srcpackage | 0.3_beta15_e16aed6-5.4 | | noarch | src-oss impressive | | srcpackage | 0.13.0~beta1-1.1 | | noarch | src-oss libcaca | | srcpackage | 0.99.beta19.git20171003-5.3 | | noarch | src-oss nodejs-packaging | | srcpackage | 10.beta11-2.9 | | noarch | src-oss perl-Audio-RPLD | | srcpackage | 0.007_0.1beta6-1.9 | | noarch | src-oss plexus-i18n | | srcpackage | 1.0~beta10-1.5 | | noarch | src-oss premake4 | | srcpackage | 4.4beta4-6.11 | | noarch | src-oss | tibetan-machine-uni-fonts | | srcpackage | 1.901-3.14 | | noarch | src-oss when-command | | srcpackage | 0.9.12~beta5-1.6 | | noarch | src-oss
Please note that not one of these programs covers nearly as broad a spectrum of user tasks as LibreOffice. As maintaining casual users, that already need to deal with a lot of real world caveats, this is unlucky. Being a user, that started with StarOffice on a SuSE 7 something in a logistic company setting, I really appreciate any attempts to improve the situation. While I really admire the prosperity of the LO project, I've touched its limits more than once. When it comes to advanced usage patterns, LO starts to struggle. Here's a small collection (just writer related): change monitoring, multiple languages, comments from different parties, tables with predefined formats and formulas. Mix some of them and find yourself in pretty "funny" situations. Not to mention interoperability issues with Microsoft Office formats. If you really want us to record LO bugs, please allow to choose, and make stable and beta run in parallel. That would even help to determine, if issues are regressions or long term behavior. Thanks, Pete -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-factory+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse-factory+owner@opensuse.org
On Sat, 2020-06-27 at 00:07 +0200, Hans-Peter Jansen wrote:
Am Freitag, 26. Juni 2020, 17:05:15 CEST schrieb Dominique Leuenberger / DimStar:
Just a very quick / dirty way:
zypper se -s | grep beta.*src-oss
Please note that not one of these programs covers nearly as broad a spectrum of user tasks as LibreOffice.
As maintaining casual users, that already need to deal with a lot of real world caveats, this is unlucky.
Being a user, that started with StarOffice on a SuSE 7 something in a logistic company setting, I really appreciate any attempts to improve the situation.
I do understand that you 'just' meant to put LO into a different light when it comes to urgency of the package, and I was not putting any effort against that - the mail was, as indicated, a prove hat a POLICY against beta, as initially asked for by Atri, is not realistic. If you followed the mail thread you might also realize that within the hour of Atri raising the topic I reached out to the LO maintainer and we came to a solution for the future. We took the history of LO versions in the past into account - and the agreement was to move forward only with what upstream labels RC and final. The general rule for all packages is, as has been for a long time: the maintainer of the package is responsible to find the balance between 'newness' and 'stability' of the package and we follow the maintainers best judgment to include updates into Tumbleweed. Cheers, Dominique
On Fri, 2020-06-26 at 15:23 +0200, Dominique Leuenberger / DimStar wrote:
Hi Atri,
On Fri, 2020-06-26 at 15:04 +0200, Atri Bhattacharya wrote:
I would strongly urge the LibreOffice packagers and you, as the release manager for TW, to reconsider shipping beta quality LO for an otherwise stable, workable TW system. There are numerous issues with the 7.0 beta2 version [1], [2], [3] (several more that I haven't yet had the time to make reports about) which taken together have quite severely set back my preparations for LO Impress based presentations I have been working on. I can live with RC-0 versions that became a regularity on TW, but shipping pre-RC quality software when there is at least one well-supported stable upstream release should be a hard no-no on TW (perhaps we need to enshrine this in some form of policy), no matter how usable and stable upstream believes their beta may be.
Tomas and I just had a quick discussion about this and agreed to move forward with RCs (this is not the first beta of LO we had in TW - but apparenly one of the betas causing more trouble). Of course we have no guarantee that if you were not finding the bugs, if they'd be fixed in the final release :)
I am more than happy to go bug-hunting with a parallelly installed beta version of LO, but I believe LibreOffice (upstream) does and will continue to see bug fixes between its beta and RC releases even without regular TW users becoming upstream's beta-testers.
[1] https://bugzilla.opensuse.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1173404 [2] https://bugzilla.opensuse.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1173409 [3] https://bugzilla.opensuse.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1173410
Would you mind filing those (and future ones) directly in LO's bug tracker? This could shorten the communication by a bit.
OK, I'll do that. Thanks. -- Atri Bhattacharya Fri 26 Jun 16:32:59 CEST 2020 Sent from openSUSE Tumbleweed on my laptop. -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-factory+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse-factory+owner@opensuse.org
On Fri 2020-06-26, Dominique Leuenberger / DimStar wrote:
Tomas and I just had a quick discussion about this and agreed to move forward with RCs (this is not the first beta of LO we had in TW - but apparenly one of the betas causing more trouble).
Thank you for looking into this, Dominique. Based on my experience I second that switching in the LibreOffice RC phase may be the better trade off. There's at least two serious regressions that I found and reported upstream in current LibreOffice betas that were addressed already. And having a stable release available via the distro in parallel to upstream dev-builds has helped me reproduce, isolate, and report many issues upstream. On the other hand, Tumbleweed is a rolling distribution that aims to not break things (totally), but accepts calculated risk, so going for an RC appears reasonable.
Of course we have no guarantee that if you were not finding the bugs, if they'd be fixed in the final release :)
My personal approach recently is using a dev-build (beta build) of LibreOffice by default, and reverting to what Tumbleweed provides if I run into a problem. So Tumbleweed provides my safety net. :-)
[1] https://bugzilla.opensuse.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1173404 [2] https://bugzilla.opensuse.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1173409 [3] https://bugzilla.opensuse.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1173410 Would you mind filing those (and future ones) directly in LO's bug tracker? This could shorten the communication by a bit.
I have filed the first upstream after checking that it was not there yet (incl. looking for reports by Atri) and reproducing it - Atri, I copied you on that report so that you can follow the progress. And I closed the openSUSE report as RESOLVED UPSTREAM. I'll be tackling the next in the coming hours. - Atri, boo#1173410 reproduces in a slightly restricted manner, but it generally does. Gerald -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-factory+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse-factory+owner@opensuse.org
Dear Gerald, On Sun, 2020-06-28 at 13:02 +0200, Gerald Pfeifer wrote:
[1] https://bugzilla.opensuse.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1173404 [2] https://bugzilla.opensuse.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1173409 [3] https://bugzilla.opensuse.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1173410 Would you mind filing those (and future ones) directly in LO's bug tracker? This could shorten the communication by a bit.
I have filed the first upstream after checking that it was not there yet (incl. looking for reports by Atri) and reproducing it - Atri, I copied you on that report so that you can follow the progress. And I closed the openSUSE report as RESOLVED UPSTREAM.
I'll be tackling the next in the coming hours. - Atri, boo#1173410 reproduces in a slightly restricted manner, but it generally does.
Big thanks for filing these upstream. I was a little busy over the weekend, and did not get the time to do so myself. Best wishes. -- Atri Bhattacharya Sun 28 Jun 13:50:41 CEST 2020 Sent from openSUSE Tumbleweed on my laptop. -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-factory+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse-factory+owner@opensuse.org
participants (6)
-
Atri Bhattacharya -
Dominique Leuenberger / DimStar -
Gerald Pfeifer -
Hans-Peter Jansen -
James Knott -
Jan Engelhardt