January 2009 - openSUSE Features - openSUSE Mailing Lists

[openFate 300758] Show orphaned packages
by fate_noreply＠suse.de 17 Jan '09

17 Jan '09

Feature changed by: Stefan Ott (Steve_Odd) Feature #300758, revision 39 Title: Show orphaned packages openSUSE-10.2: Rejected by Thorsten Kukuk <kukuk(a)novell.com> reject date: 2006-08-02 11:31:19 reject reason: For SL10.2 we have to get libzypp really stable and fast before we add new features. Priority Requester: Important openSUSE-10.3: Rejected by Stanislav Visnovsky <visnov(a)novell.com> reject date: 2007-07-17 17:03:57 reject reason: Postponing. Priority Requester: Important Projectmanager: Desirable openSUSE-11.0: Rejected by Stanislav Visnovsky <visnov(a)novell.com> reject date: 2007-11-21 12:16:20 reject reason: Out of scope for 11.0 Priority Requester: Important openSUSE-11.1: Rejected by Stanislav Visnovsky <visnov(a)novell.com> reject date: 2008-07-07 13:34:02 reject reason: Postponing, needs underlaying infrastructure to be fixed first. Priority Requester: Important openSUSE-11.2: Evaluation Priority Requester: Important Requested by: Stephan Binner (beineri) Interested: Andreas Jaeger (a_jaeger) Interested: Andrey S (seld) Interested: Ján Kupec (jkupec) Interested: Matthias Eckermann (mge1512) Interested: Ruchir Brahmbhatt (ruchir) Interested: Santiago Hirschfeld (jsantiagoh) + Interested: Stefan Ott (steve_odd) Interested: Vincent Untz (vuntz) Partner organization: openSUSE.org Description: The package manager should learn to show orphanized packages (packages which are not required by other packages and are not in wanted selections) and allow to deinstall them like the popular debfoster/deborphan tools. A typical use case: user installs an application which pulls in some dependencies to test it, uninstalls the application shortly after or way later but the dependencies stay unused installed on the system. Commandline UI (zypper) only. References: https://bugzilla.novell.com/show_bug.cgi?id=166132 Discussion: #1: Jiri Srain (jsrain) (2007-06-05 13:46:00) Schubi, is there any possibility to make solver tell which packages are orphanized? It would be interesting especially if the packages which are marked for deletion were considered as non-installed (eg. if foo- devel is installed but marked for deletion and nothing else requires foo, then foo is orphanized). #2: Stefan Schubert (schubi2) (2007-06-06 11:04:04) (reply to #1) Currently not cause the solver has no information about who (user, package,...) has triggered the installation of a package. If we are storing this information it would be possible for solver to remove these kind of packages too. It is not simple but doable. By the way, we will have to store this kind of information in the future. E.g. we need to save the "keep state by user" in a database in order to regard this state in future solver runs. #3: Jiri Srain (jsrain) (2007-06-06 14:25:07) (reply to #2) Looks like a missunderstanding. Basically every package wihch is not required/recommended/suggested or doesn't enhance anything that is installed and not marked for deletion is IMO considered to be orphanized. If user eg. wants to remove a pattern including all its packages (which are not required by something else), solver providing this kind of information would help a lot (and I don't think that we would need any other information to be stored. #4: Stefan Schubert (schubi2) (2007-06-06 15:33:44) (reply to #3) I do not think so. What does "orphanized" mean ? Let me take your example from comment #1. foo should be deleted too if the user delete foo-devel and foo has been installed due the requirement of foo-devel. BUT the user will kill us if we are deleting foo although the user has installed foo explicit sometime ago in a seperate installation workflow. So this information ( The USER has installed foo) will be currently not saved and is needed here to decide if foo has to be deleted or not. #5: Stefan Schubert (schubi2) (2007-06-06 15:39:47) (reply to #3) Lets take your example concerning the erasing of patterns. That is much more complex. I have already described the problem here: http://en.opensuse.org/Libzypp/Solver#Known_Problems " Proper behaviour of erasing patterns" There are already some bugzilla entries: Bug 274283 - Delete iFolder from YaST makes eDirectory Delete mandatory Bug 238250 - YaST does not upgrade an Add-on Product #6: Jiri Srain (jsrain) (2007-06-08 16:46:32) See also https://bugzilla.novell.com/show_bug.cgi?id=166132 This is another use case for the same solver functionality #8: Federico Lucifredi (flucifredi) (2008-06-12 20:46:17) this should be commandline-only, definitely an advanced-user option. #9: Federico Lucifredi (flucifredi) (2008-06-12 20:47:28) cut from description: See Bug 140346 #10: Duncan Mac-Vicar (dmacvicar) (2008-11-03 11:24:53) As discussed in Prague, this could be done using the package history once we have a reader. -- openSUSE Feature: https://features.opensuse.org/?rm=feature_show&id=300758

1 0

[openFate 305634] Debian-like dist-upgrade live system full version upgrade
by fate_noreply＠suse.de 17 Jan '09

17 Jan '09

Feature changed by: Robert Davies (robopensuse) Feature #305634, revision 23 Title: Debian-like dist-upgrade live system full version upgrade openSUSE-11.2: Evaluation Priority Requester: Mandatory Requested by: Federico Lucifredi (flucifredi) Interested: Andre Duffeck (aduffeck) Interested: Bruno Friedmann (bruno_friedmann) Interested: Francis Giannaros (apokryphos) Interested: Guy Lunardi (glunardi) Interested: Joe Brockmeier (jbrockmeier) Interested: JP Rosevear (jproseve) Interested: Klaus Kämpf (kwk) Interested: Mario Carrion (mariocarrion) Interested: Markus K (kamikazow) Interested: Matthias Eckermann (mge1512) Interested: Maxi Schimmel (maxxs) + Interested: Robert Davies (robopensuse) Interested: Stefan Behlert (sbehlert) Interested: Stephan Binner (beineri) Interested: Stephan Kulow (coolo) Interested: Thorsten Kukuk (kukuk) Partner organization: openSUSE.org Description: With the 11.2 cycle, we want to offer users the ability to perform a live system upgrade in the manner of Debian's dist-upgrade. For the purpose of this cycle, we want to support dist-upgrade from the previous version (11.1) only, as this is a sufficiently complicated problem as is. From the user's view, the difference is between being able to update the system incrementally within the given version or service pack running, to being ble to migrate with a system command ("zypper dup" or similar) to a higher version altogether. In the Debian experience, the set of base distributions is not necessarily limited, but it has been Ubuntu's practice to define what starting points other than "release n-1" are allowed (for instance, all LTS versions are purported to be able to "apt dist-upgrade" to the top of the line, although I have heard of problems trying to jump two years - 6.06->8.10 - in a fell swoop in this manner :-). In the openSUSE scope, we should aim to be able to "dup" between incremental versions, starting from 11.1 to 11.2, and later 11.x to 12.0. Business case (Partner benefit): openSUSE.org: With the introduction of the Zypper stack to SLE, we finally reached the state of a featureful (which YOU was not) and fast, reliable (which ZLM was not) update stack in the platform. For enterprise use, some tweaks are still desirable (changelogs, rollback, ...) which we are looking at, as well as improvements on the Enterprise management front, which we are working on with our SRM colleagues. The only really significant competitive feature we are missing at this point is the Debian/Ubuntu dist-upgrade functionality, which has a powerful psychological impact at the Enterprise level and a much more tangible impact at the small user / single user level: many with no IT department do use Ubuntu these days on the basis that "chasing" Fedora and openSUSE along the six-month upgrade cycle is too much for them, and feel they can save time on Ubuntu with the combination of dist- upgrade and the longer LTS cycle. The rationale for pursuing this is to revoke the special status of coolness this functionality gives Ubuntu, and to terminate the negative influence that may have on our SLE sales (from the expert's personal opinion, the preference then easily spills into purchasing). Discussion: #1: Federico Lucifredi (flucifredi) (2009-01-07 20:42:15) This is the #1 feature in the systems management scope for 11.2 - I have no doubt it will be fun :-) #4: Klaus Kämpf (kwk) (2009-01-09 11:32:53) Passing to mls for technical evaluation (solver + autobuild) #5: Michael Schröder (mlschroe) (2009-01-09 12:48:10) Any hint on what features are currently missing? #6: Klaus Kämpf (kwk) (2009-01-09 13:30:57) (reply to #5) From the top of my head: How to handle * Library ABI changes (e.g. major gcc/g++ upgrades) ? * Core package changes (e.g. devs.rpm to udev) ? * Kernel changes (if application/deamons need a specific kernel abi, dbus comes into mind) ? * Failure handling (network breakdown, package update errors, ...) ? * Booting of the new kernel ? #7: Michael Schröder (mlschroe) (2009-01-09 14:45:09) (reply to #6) And debian does this in some way? + #8: Robert Davies (robopensuse) (2009-01-17 12:43:42) (reply to #7) + The distupgrade feature differs from changing source list and doing + upgrade, so some utility process could be started. They may require + some documented procedure to be followed, for "tough" changes. But ABI + change, how long since ELF/glibc was introduced? C++ ABI ought not be + relevant for upgrade process, they are "just" applications and libaries + to be updated. Failure handling - you are told to back up your system + first, it is "best effort" not guaranteed. The less you have installed + the more likely it is to succeed. Debian offer choice of kernels, this + may "punt" the problem to a user controlled install and select from + GRUB menu. Debian have apt-cache possibility, to create central pool of + packages, to decrease liklihood of network troubles, as well as huge + number CD and DVD iso's. -- openSUSE Feature: https://features.opensuse.org/?rm=feature_show&id=305634

1 0

[openFate 303532] Reduce size of updates for openSUSE Factory
by fate_noreply＠suse.de 17 Jan '09

17 Jan '09

Feature changed by: Ruchir Brahmbhatt (Ruchir) Feature #303532, revision 17 Title: Reduce size of updates for openSUSE Factory Buildservice: Evaluation Priority Requester: Important Projectmanager: Important openSUSE-11.0: Rejected by Stephan Kulow <coolo(a)novell.com> reject date: 2008-06-06 09:06:29 reject reason: not really attached to a specific openSUSE version Priority Requester: Important Projectmanager: Important openSUSE-11.1: Rejected by Adrian Schröter <adrian(a)novell.com> reject date: 2008-11-06 16:10:03 reject reason: This is a build service feature, but no distribution feature. Priority Requester: Important Projectmanager: Important Requested by: Michael Loeffler (sprudel24) Interested: Duncan Mac-Vicar (dmacvicar) Interested: Gerald Pfeifer (geraldpfeifer) Interested: Klaas Freitag (kfreitag) Interested: Lukas Lipavsky (llipavsky) Interested: Maxi Schimmel (maxxs) Interested: Michal Marek (michal-m) Interested: Peter Poeml (poeml) + Interested: Ruchir Brahmbhatt (ruchir) Interested: Ruediger Oertel (oertel) Interested: Stephan Kulow (coolo) Interested: Vincent Untz (vuntz) Partner organization: openSUSE.org Description: Each update currently is around 2GB which is already much for broadband bandwith. For user with less bandwith it's by and large impossible to use Factory. Goal is to reduce size of updates and stay with frequent updates to offer latest software to the user. As we want more people using Factory it's usage needs to be conveniant. Discussion: #1: Stephan Kulow (coolo) (2008-03-27 16:48:43) According to discussions with Rudi and mls, the delta setup on dist need to be changed to also contain the rpm header and the deltas need to be indexed in a way that zypp will see them. So we can still use drpmsync for internal distribution and put the deltas only in instsource for mirrors. #2: Duncan Mac-Vicar (dmacvicar) (2008-04-22 13:28:56) This will happen automatically once the remaining parts of libzypp deltarpm handling are finished. We only need to agree on the format. I will propose something today. #3: Duncan Mac-Vicar (dmacvicar) (2008-05-26 17:09:31) ZYpp side is done. The only thing that needs to be done is to generate the deltarpm metadata in factory. I will post link to documentation and examples shortly. #4: Gerald Pfeifer (geraldpfeifer) (2009-01-03 14:54:00) Opening this up for openSUSE.org. #5: Stephan Kulow (coolo) (2009-01-16 08:24:42) ok, we discussed this a bit further. We plan to throw away builds that are equal to the previous build and publish deltas generated by the build clients if they are not equal. If a build is equal is to be defined, for now it's a shell script that checks various properties - and works acceptable for now. I rebuild a good portion of 11.1 without further changes and get 7345 binary rpms (including all subpackages). 5666 are considered equal by my current script (based on work by Michael Matz). And many of other packages are possible to fix, so they are equal too. So this gives for uneffected rebuilds a huge reduction of updates. The kernels and kmps are currently seen as !equal after an uneffected rebuild as they put the %release (rebuild counter) in many places. Not sure how much the script should work around such cases. But even for those the download size would reduce: kernel-default.i586 (with base and extra): 25.7MB to download deltas of it: 6.7MB (I think the kernel puts a lot of "rebuild on" info in the code) -- openSUSE Feature: https://features.opensuse.org/?rm=feature_show&id=303532

1 0

[openFate 300758] Show orphaned packages
by fate_noreply＠suse.de 17 Jan '09

17 Jan '09

Feature changed by: Ruchir Brahmbhatt (Ruchir) Feature #300758, revision 38 Title: Show orphaned packages openSUSE-10.2: Rejected by Thorsten Kukuk <kukuk(a)novell.com> reject date: 2006-08-02 11:31:19 reject reason: For SL10.2 we have to get libzypp really stable and fast before we add new features. Priority Requester: Important openSUSE-10.3: Rejected by Stanislav Visnovsky <visnov(a)novell.com> reject date: 2007-07-17 17:03:57 reject reason: Postponing. Priority Requester: Important Projectmanager: Desirable openSUSE-11.0: Rejected by Stanislav Visnovsky <visnov(a)novell.com> reject date: 2007-11-21 12:16:20 reject reason: Out of scope for 11.0 Priority Requester: Important openSUSE-11.1: Rejected by Stanislav Visnovsky <visnov(a)novell.com> reject date: 2008-07-07 13:34:02 reject reason: Postponing, needs underlaying infrastructure to be fixed first. Priority Requester: Important openSUSE-11.2: Evaluation Priority Requester: Important Requested by: Stephan Binner (beineri) Interested: Andreas Jaeger (a_jaeger) Interested: Andrey S (seld) Interested: Ján Kupec (jkupec) Interested: Matthias Eckermann (mge1512) + Interested: Ruchir Brahmbhatt (ruchir) Interested: Santiago Hirschfeld (jsantiagoh) Interested: Vincent Untz (vuntz) Partner organization: openSUSE.org Description: The package manager should learn to show orphanized packages (packages which are not required by other packages and are not in wanted selections) and allow to deinstall them like the popular debfoster/deborphan tools. A typical use case: user installs an application which pulls in some dependencies to test it, uninstalls the application shortly after or way later but the dependencies stay unused installed on the system. Commandline UI (zypper) only. References: https://bugzilla.novell.com/show_bug.cgi?id=166132 Discussion: #1: Jiri Srain (jsrain) (2007-06-05 13:46:00) Schubi, is there any possibility to make solver tell which packages are orphanized? It would be interesting especially if the packages which are marked for deletion were considered as non-installed (eg. if foo- devel is installed but marked for deletion and nothing else requires foo, then foo is orphanized). #2: Stefan Schubert (schubi2) (2007-06-06 11:04:04) (reply to #1) Currently not cause the solver has no information about who (user, package,...) has triggered the installation of a package. If we are storing this information it would be possible for solver to remove these kind of packages too. It is not simple but doable. By the way, we will have to store this kind of information in the future. E.g. we need to save the "keep state by user" in a database in order to regard this state in future solver runs. #3: Jiri Srain (jsrain) (2007-06-06 14:25:07) (reply to #2) Looks like a missunderstanding. Basically every package wihch is not required/recommended/suggested or doesn't enhance anything that is installed and not marked for deletion is IMO considered to be orphanized. If user eg. wants to remove a pattern including all its packages (which are not required by something else), solver providing this kind of information would help a lot (and I don't think that we would need any other information to be stored. #4: Stefan Schubert (schubi2) (2007-06-06 15:33:44) (reply to #3) I do not think so. What does "orphanized" mean ? Let me take your example from comment #1. foo should be deleted too if the user delete foo-devel and foo has been installed due the requirement of foo-devel. BUT the user will kill us if we are deleting foo although the user has installed foo explicit sometime ago in a seperate installation workflow. So this information ( The USER has installed foo) will be currently not saved and is needed here to decide if foo has to be deleted or not. #5: Stefan Schubert (schubi2) (2007-06-06 15:39:47) (reply to #3) Lets take your example concerning the erasing of patterns. That is much more complex. I have already described the problem here: http://en.opensuse.org/Libzypp/Solver#Known_Problems " Proper behaviour of erasing patterns" There are already some bugzilla entries: Bug 274283 - Delete iFolder from YaST makes eDirectory Delete mandatory Bug 238250 - YaST does not upgrade an Add-on Product #6: Jiri Srain (jsrain) (2007-06-08 16:46:32) See also https://bugzilla.novell.com/show_bug.cgi?id=166132 This is another use case for the same solver functionality #8: Federico Lucifredi (flucifredi) (2008-06-12 20:46:17) this should be commandline-only, definitely an advanced-user option. #9: Federico Lucifredi (flucifredi) (2008-06-12 20:47:28) cut from description: See Bug 140346 #10: Duncan Mac-Vicar (dmacvicar) (2008-11-03 11:24:53) As discussed in Prague, this could be done using the package history once we have a reader. -- openSUSE Feature: https://features.opensuse.org/?rm=feature_show&id=300758

1 0

[openFate 302923] handle redirection to mirrors robustly
by fate_noreply＠suse.de 17 Jan '09

17 Jan '09

Feature changed by: Ruchir Brahmbhatt (Ruchir) Feature #302923, revision 17 Title: handle redirection to mirrors robustly openSUSE-11.0: Rejected by Stanislav Visnovsky <visnov(a)novell.com> reject date: 2007-11-28 15:42:20 reject reason: Out of scope for 11.0 Priority Requester: Neutral openSUSE-11.1: Rejected by Matthias Eckermann <mge(a)novell.com> reject date: 2008-07-22 23:04:50 reject reason: Postponing, will not be ready. Priority Requester: Neutral openSUSE-11.2: Evaluation Priority Requester: Neutral Requested by: Ján Kupec (jkupec) Interested: Andreas Jaeger (a_jaeger) Interested: Guy Lunardi (glunardi) Interested: Klaus Kämpf (kwk) Interested: Marcus Kraft (marcuskraft) Interested: Matthias Eckermann (mge1512) + Interested: Ruchir Brahmbhatt (ruchir) Partner organization: openSUSE.org Description: The proposal is to try other mirrors from a mirror list (from the redirector?) if an error occurs on some of the mirrors while providing a file from http/ftp repository. See the references for more details. References: https://bugzilla.novell.com/show_bug.cgi?id=337410 http://lists.opensuse.org/opensuse-buildservice/2007-10/msg00170.html http://en.opensuse.org/Libzypp/Failover http://code.google.com/soc/2008/suse/appinfo.html?csaid=6F1844AB23B67E06 Discussion: #1: Stephan Kulow (coolo) (2007-11-20 11:15:49) I would be strictly against having an own mirror list. The decision was to go with the redirector (or NCC for SLE) and be done with mirrors. If that does not work, then we have to do this whole thing again, not adding untested work arounds to the product. #2: Stephan Kulow (coolo) (2007-11-20 11:16:55) so I would reject this. But it's basically "Eval by Klaas" now #3: Klaas Freitag (kfreitag) (2007-12-03 09:49:44) I agree with Coolos and Peters statements, I would also reject. #4: Klaas Freitag (kfreitag) (2008-06-12 10:06:42) I have to revert my statement that I made before in comment #3, this problem is more serious than realised in the first look. First, it should be noted that we do not control mirrors nor we do have the chance to really influence them. That means that if a mirrors decides to not longer mirror or to switch off or whatever, we have to live with it. However if a customer is sticky to a mirror that is not longer available he would not get any packages from it and thus installation or update fails. The worst thing about that is that this seems to happen regularly but we do not realise that because we're not involved. A solution would be to have a list of possible mirrors that is used by the software installation stack to find a working mirror. Peter knows much more here. But I am not sure at the moment if not Yast/zypper already has this functionality in 11.0? #5: Peter Poeml (poeml) (2008-10-01 11:58:38) YaST/zypper in 11.1 will have preliminary support for this. The essential part of http://en.opensuse.org/Libzypp/Failover has been implemented during a GSoC project this year. See http://lists.opensuse.org/zypp-devel/2008-09/msg00142.html for the status. There is a number of things left to do, like * making it the default * better debuggability - show what it does * better progress report * testing * integration into the install system so it is available during installation Further features from the proposal (mirror preference, simultaneous downloads) are not tackled yet. #6: Federico Lucifredi (flucifredi) (2009-01-07 16:29:58) I would like to see robust redirection, if possible. The details about a list, probably should not be in the feature description. -- openSUSE Feature: https://features.opensuse.org/?rm=feature_show&id=302923

1 0

[openFate 120340] Run download and install in parallel
by fate_noreply＠suse.de 17 Jan '09

17 Jan '09

Feature changed by: Ruchir Brahmbhatt (Ruchir) Feature #120340, revision 41 Title: Run download and install in parallel openSUSE-10.2: Rejected by Klaus Kämpf <kkaempf(a)novell.com> reject date: 2006-08-09 11:36:10 reject reason: Not possible in 10.2 timeframe Priority Requester: Important openSUSE-10.3: Rejected by Stanislav Visnovsky <visnov(a)novell.com> reject date: 2007-08-01 10:25:01 reject reason: Out of time. Priority Requester: Important Projectmanager: Important openSUSE-11.0: Rejected by Jiri Srain <jsrain(a)novell.com> reject date: 2008-03-28 13:56:11 reject reason: Out of resources for 11.0. Priority Requester: Important Projectmanager: Important openSUSE-11.1: Rejected by Stanislav Visnovsky <visnov(a)novell.com> reject date: 2008-07-11 12:06:35 reject reason: This needs to wait. Postponing. Priority Requester: Important Projectmanager: Important openSUSE-11.2: Evaluation Priority Requester: Important Requested by: Klaus Kämpf (kwk) Requested by: Peter Poeml (poeml) Requested by: Reinhard Max (rmax) Interested: Ján Kupec (jkupec) Interested: Lukas Ocilka (locilka) Interested: Robert Davies (robopensuse) + Interested: Ruchir Brahmbhatt (ruchir) Interested: Stephan Binner (beineri) Partner organization: openSUSE.org Description: Network installation could be improved by running package download and package installation in parallel. References: https://bugzilla.novell.com/show_bug.cgi?id=60844 https://bugzilla.novell.com/show_bug.cgi?id=209799 https://bugzilla.novell.com/show_bug.cgi?id=128050 https://bugzilla.novell.com/show_bug.cgi?id=370457 https://bugzilla.novell.com/show_bug.cgi?id=370054 https://bugzilla.novell.com/show_bug.cgi?id=385711 http://en.opensuse.org/Libzypp/Failover http://metalinker.org/ Fate #300660: Download package groups before install Discussion: #2: Klaus Kämpf (kwk) (2006-08-09 11:36:42) Michael already looked at this. Should be further evaluated for 10.3 #3: Edith Parzefall (emapedl) (2007-07-31 16:56:12) Problem is: what do we do if we lost the network connection when only half the packages are installed? #7: Reinhard Max (rmax) (2008-04-10 11:42:43) (reply to #3) I think this is a general problem for network based installations. Can you elaborate if/why you see this as a special problem when download and installation are running in parallel? #8: Peter Poeml (poeml) (2008-05-19 14:49:53) (reply to #7) For reliable operation of a business critical server, it is a must that packages are downloaded first, before the installation/update is started. Otherwise a network outage can lead to a broken system which is half updated. So if parallel download/install is implemented (for desktop users, maybe...) then please make sure that it is possible to disable it. #9: Reinhard Max (rmax) (2008-05-19 16:01:15) (reply to #8) As we just sorted out on IRC, the current implementation also doesn't allow to complete download before starting installation and the feature proposed here wouldn't make this worse. But as the wish of server admins to have all packages downloaded before starting to install them is very valid, I think we should extend this feature request to contain that requirement as well, and probably rename it to "decouple download and installation". If download and installation are properly decoupled, it should just be a matter of the parameters the algorithm is called with to get one of the following behaviours: * Download and install packages one by one (as it is now) * Keep downloading subsequent packages while installing (as originally proposed here) * Use a fixed-size download cache for flow control between download an installations (in situations where download is faster than installation and disk space is limited) * Download all packages of an update or installation and install them afterwards (as requested by Peter for server admins) #10: Jiri Srain (jsrain) (2008-05-20 10:22:10) (reply to #9) We already do have similar feature: #300660: Download package groups before install #4: Edith Parzefall (emapedl) (2007-07-31 16:57:22) Please reject for 10.3. #5: Duncan Mac-Vicar (dmacvicar) (2008-01-10 16:23:46) This is included in the ZYpp plan for 11.0, however implementation will start after beta. Will keep in evaluation, it depends on other milestones for beta1 -- openSUSE Feature: https://features.opensuse.org/?rm=feature_show&id=120340

1 0

[openFate 120326] Resume download
by fate_noreply＠suse.de 17 Jan '09

17 Jan '09

Feature changed by: Ruchir Brahmbhatt (Ruchir) Feature #120326, revision 34 Title: Resume download openSUSE-10.2: Rejected by Stanislav Visnovsky <visnov(a)novell.com> reject date: 2006-09-21 09:56:17 reject reason: Not enough resources to implement in time. Priority Requester: Desirable Projectmanager: Desirable openSUSE-10.3: Rejected by Stanislav Visnovsky <visnov(a)novell.com> reject date: 2007-07-25 15:20:32 reject reason: Out of time. Postponing. Priority Requester: Desirable Projectmanager: Desirable openSUSE-11.0: Rejected by Jiri Srain <jsrain(a)novell.com> reject date: 2008-03-28 13:51:03 reject reason: Out of resources for 11.0. Priority Requester: Desirable Projectmanager: Important openSUSE-11.1: Rejected by Stanislav Visnovsky <visnov(a)novell.com> reject date: 2008-07-01 11:34:46 reject reason: Postponing, needs downloading refactor. Priority Requester: Desirable openSUSE-11.2: Evaluation Priority Requester: Desirable Requested by: Klaus Kämpf (kwk) Interested: Andreas Jaeger (a_jaeger) Interested: Ján Kupec (jkupec) + Interested: Ruchir Brahmbhatt (ruchir) Partner organization: openSUSE.org Description: YaST/YOU times out too easy when downloading large packages like kde- base (14 MB) over a single ISDN connection. Please cache the half downloaded package so I don't have to start from the beginning again. See http://bugzilla.suse.de/show_bug.cgi?id=9740 (http://bugzilla.suse.de/show_bug.cgi?id=9740) http://bugzilla.suse.de/show_bug.cgi?id=278507 (http://bugzilla.suse.de/show_bug.cgi?id=9740) Discussion: #1: Gerald Pfeifer (geraldpfeifer) (2006-06-30 17:40:31) Klaus, do you now whether this is still an issue? #2: Klaus Kämpf (kwk) (2006-06-30 18:38:23) We still have very large packages (kernel, OpenOffice_org) which might not download completely in one go. #7: Stanislav Visnovsky (visnov) (2007-11-23 10:32:46) Related to commit-refactoring. #9: Federico Lucifredi (flucifredi) (2008-06-12 20:21:33) Klaus, are you still running ISDN? just kidding :-) Stano, please your opinion on workload - is this easily achievable? if not, there are hgher priorities. #10: Stanislav Visnovsky (visnov) (2008-06-20 13:10:21) (reply to #9) Jiri, could we get estimate for this? #11: Jiri Srain (jsrain) (2008-08-04 08:59:34) (reply to #10) Since curl itself does support resuming download, then this feature should not be hard to be implemented. + #12: Ruchir Brahmbhatt (ruchir) (2009-01-17 12:07:25) + I also vote for this feature. -- openSUSE Feature: https://features.opensuse.org/?rm=feature_show&id=120326

1 0

[openFate 305586] Desktop independent global notification framework
by fate_noreply＠suse.de 17 Jan '09

17 Jan '09

Feature changed by: Ruchir Brahmbhatt (Ruchir) Feature #305586, revision 9 Title: Desktop independent global notification framework openSUSE-11.2: Evaluation Priority Requester: Important Requested by: Stefan Assmann (assmannst) Interested: Alexander Graf (algraf) Interested: Garrett LeSage (glesage) Interested: Guy Lunardi (glunardi) Interested: Jared Allen (jpallen) Interested: Matthias Eckermann (mge1512) + Interested: Ruchir Brahmbhatt (ruchir) Interested: Siegfried Olschner (sdolschn) Interested: Stefan Fent (sfent) Interested: Tejun Heo (teheo) Partner organization: openSUSE.org Description: Our current desktop environments lack a good, configurable notification framework like Growl on Mac OS X. With D-BUS in place we could develop/integrate a framework that is desktop independent and could serve both KDE and GNOME applications the same way. This provides one step towards integrating both desktops more closely, thus making the user experience smoother. One such notification system is already in development. It's called mumbles (http://www.mumbles-project.org/) and provides lots of features similar to Growl. * It's customizable * Has theming support * Has plugin support * Desktop independent * Can use compiz for smooth display Using such a framework, more than just integrating desktops could be achieved: * Local notifications on hardware events * Remote notifications on login/hardware events * Easy scriptability for custom notifications Steps necessary to implement such a framework in openSUSE/SLE: * Install and configure framework by default * Integrate framework configuration in desktop environment * Make framework interactive so the user can react on events (optional) * Make applications D-Bus/Notification aware, so they send events, already available: Firefox, Thunderbird, Pidgin, several others Business case (Partner benefit): openSUSE.org: Such a framework would be a huge win for the general user experience, as it makes the desktop look more integrated and smooth. It's even a good idea for SLES, so administrators can be easily notified when events occur, without the hassle to set up syslog forwarding+parsing+notifying. Discussion: #2: Guy Lunardi (glunardi) (2008-12-18 08:32:18) I agree this is an important part of the desktop platform. How is this different from the libnotify solution which I believe we use for this purpose today? It is my PM understanding it does most everything you are describing including a CLI (notify-send). Applications such as NetworkManager, PowerManager, Pidgin and Banshee. Reading their FAQ, the reason for not using libnotify is that the author wanted to put more Python dependent software on their system :- ). Is this proposal about switching from libnotify to mumbles? (honestly asking, I have no opinion) #3: Stefan Assmann (assmannst) (2008-12-18 15:46:19) (reply to #2) Honestly I have not much insighted into libnotify myself. Talking to Alex Graf about this, we came up with the idea to teach the libnotify daemon how to forward messages to mumbles. It turns out that libnotify has support for theming, so it should be possible to create a theme that forwards all events to mumbles. Then we would not have to make a decision what we should use and could just switch and see what suits us best. This way we don't lose any functionality. In my opinion mumbles looks a lot smoother than the current libnotify messages. However I guess everything possible with mumbles could be tought to libnotify as well. Frankly said I don't want to make a decision here, what I care for is that the functionality described in this fate will be integrated into our products. #4: Stefan Assmann (assmannst) (2008-12-18 16:15:56) (reply to #3) Update: Talking to the developers I just learned that mumbles will intercept libnotify messages and handle them. There's a plugin for mumbles that does that. #5: Tejun Heo (teheo) (2008-12-22 13:28:54) I think that having the notion of what a "notification" is and how the user can take "action"s to it is quite important. There are multiple classes of notifications - some are ephemeral while others must get acknowledgement from the user. For example, download complete from firefox, new driver or codec installation suggestion and smartd reporting imminent disk failures can and probably should use the same notification mechanism but they need to be handled differently. For ephemeral notifications, I think what libnotify has been doing is fine but for anything else, we at least need a way for the user to ack or take actions accordingly and review and search unacked and acked notifications. I think having such notification mechanism will help us a lot as a distro as it will enable us to suggest things in not-too-intrusive yet friendly way. -- openSUSE Feature: https://features.opensuse.org/?rm=feature_show&id=305586

1 0

[openFate 304879] OOo: Update of KDE integration to KDE4
by fate_noreply＠suse.de 17 Jan '09

17 Jan '09

Feature changed by: Ruchir Brahmbhatt (Ruchir) Feature #304879, revision 19 Title: OOo: Update of KDE integration to KDE4 openSUSE-11.1: Rejected by JP Rosevear <jpr(a)novell.com> reject date: 2008-08-15 11:47:35 reject reason: As per PM recommendation. Priority Requester: Mandatory Projectmanager: Important Requested by: Stephan Binner (beineri) Interested: Markus K (kamikazow) Interested: Maxi Schimmel (maxxs) + Interested: Ruchir Brahmbhatt (ruchir) Interested: Stephan Kulow (coolo) Partner organization: openSUSE.org Description: The current OOo KDE integration (file dialogs, addressbook, interface/icon theme,...) is based on KDE3. As openSUSE 11.1/SLED 11 will likely not include KDE3 anymore it has to be upgraded to KDE4. Discussion: #1: Stephan Kulow (coolo) (2008-06-13 09:54:23) There are far too many mandatory OOo features. Please reevaluate - it's unlikely that we won't ship KDE3 apps in SLED11 #2: Dirk Mueller (dirkmueller) (2008-06-13 13:25:48) (reply to #1) we will ship KDE3 libs, yes. that doesn't mean that we desire to have KDE3 app dependencies ;) #7: Rajesh Ganesan (ganesanrajesh) (2009-01-07 03:20:08) Well, an excellent idea and most expected too. But (http://kde.openoffice.org/) seems struck at March 2006 itself. Any plans(or chance) of revival? -- openSUSE Feature: https://features.opensuse.org/?rm=feature_show&id=304879

1 0

[openFate 303311] Include Pidgin and the Conferencing Plugin for Pidgin
by fate_noreply＠suse.de 17 Jan '09

17 Jan '09

Feature changed by: Ruchir Brahmbhatt (Ruchir) Feature #303311, revision 14 Title: Include Pidgin and the Conferencing Plugin for Pidgin Requested by: Gary Ekker (gekker) + Developer: Michael Wolf (maw) + Interested: Ruchir Brahmbhatt (ruchir) Interested: Stefan Behlert (sbehlert) Partner organization: openSUSE.org Description: The Teaming + Conferencing product team from the workgroup BU would like us to include pidgin and the conferencing plugin for pidgin in SLED10-SP2. Discussion: #1: Gary Ekker (gekker) (2008-02-15 13:37:24) Pidgin was added. We were unable to add the zon-plugin and libicecore as there are still some packaging issues to be worked out for libicecore. libicecore is also not yet ready for x86_64. #3: Stefan Behlert (sbehlert) (2008-10-23 16:40:14) Gary, Michael, any news on zon-plugin? #4: Stefan Behlert (sbehlert) (2008-11-13 23:49:29) No progress here. I'm rejecting this now. Let's see if we want this for SP1 or if we have EMpathy there anda differen tsolution. -- openSUSE Feature: https://features.opensuse.org/?rm=feature_show&id=303311

1 0