Mailinglist Archive: opensuse-packaging (54 mails)

< Previous Next >
Re: [opensuse-packaging] python single-spec progress, questions


On 10/29/2016 12:15 PM, Todd Rme wrote:
On Fri, Oct 28, 2016 at 9:31 PM, Simon Lees <sflees@xxxxxxx> wrote:


On 10/28/2016 10:59 PM, Todd Rme wrote:
On Fri, Oct 28, 2016 at 12:22 AM, Simon Lees <sflees@xxxxxxx> wrote:


On 10/28/2016 01:55 PM, Todd Rme wrote:
On Thu, Oct 27, 2016 at 7:35 PM, Simon Lees <sflees@xxxxxxx> wrote:


On 10/28/2016 08:01 AM, Todd Rme wrote:
On Thu, Oct 27, 2016 at 5:07 PM, Simon Lees <sflees@xxxxxxx> wrote:


On 10/28/2016 05:05 AM, Todd Rme wrote:
As for applications requiring dependencies only in d:l:py the simple
policy should be anything added to d:l:py should also then be forwarded
to openSUSE:Factory where it will hopefully get picked up for the next
Leap release as well. If this is enforced the required deps will always
be available for all repos and it won't be an issue.

Are you talking about all packages or only non-python packages?
Because there are a lot of niche python tools in d:l:p that I don't
think belong in openSUSE:Factory.

All packages, unless they are of no interest to anyone even those doing
python development. Users shouldn't need to add development repo's to
there systems especially ones like d:l:p where there is a high chance
that they can completely break there system by updating with it enabled.
So if its useful to any openSUSE users it should go in the distro if its
not there is probably a question of does it actually need to be there
still? Richard has been pushing this view far more then I but its a view
I agree with (you can watch his openSUSE conference talk).

There are certainly people who hold this view, but I have seen nothing
to suggest it is remotely close to a consensus view. I personally
cannot emphasize how strongly I disagree with this view, and how much
I think it would harm projects like d:l:p. If it becomes official
openSUSE policy, then certainly d:l:p will have to follow it. But I
am strongly opposed d:l:p implementing this policy on its own.
Especially since it would involve eliminating hundreds of useful
packages that our volunteers have been willing to package but aren't
willing to go through the often months-long process of getting
accepted into openSUSE:Factory. We simply don't have the manpower to
get every useful package into openSUSE:Factory, even if they all
belonged there (and I think many of them don't belong there).

While the legal review can take up to a month, although from personal
experience its gotten better of late (Even with the haskell development
project adding 1500 packages at once) It's not like its a month of hard
effort required. If something is packaged reasonably well to start with
and according to openSUSE's guidelines the amount of work required to
get it included is pretty minimal and any issues should be resolved
within 1 or 2 submit requests. If people would like help with this I and
others are willing to spend time helping them fix there issues.
Personally I think that packages in openSUSE development repo's should
be following openSUSE guidelines and packages that are not willing to do
that should be in some other sub repository like d:l:p:Playground but
i'm guessing others would disagree.

I disagree with most of what you said, but this can be discussed
further in the Factory mailing list. What you are suggesting is a
fundamental change to the most basic aspects of how OSC is organized.
I am strongly against using d:l:p as a testing ground for such a
change.

Given that most of the Desktop environments including
(KDE/Gnome/Enlightenment) and other repo's such as haskell and probably
others that I don't know about are already doing this so d:l:p would
hardly be the first or a testing ground.

Again, discussing major changes to the basic structure of OSC is
off-topic for this thread. This is just about the changes needed for
python packages, not for a complete reorganization of OSC.

This is not anything to do with a complete reorganization of osc it is
only discussing organising d:l:p (which is getting reshuffles anyway)
with a aim to getting more of its contents into the "openSUSE
Distribution" as a whole given this is the openSUSE packaging list
discussing packaging of the openSUSE Distro it seems appropriate.

I would strongly prefer not to further derail this thread with this
discussion. There are many reasons I don't like this policy, but they
are way off topic, and getting into a lengthy discussion about them
distracts from all the work that has to get done related to the actual
topic of discussion. So if you wish to discuss this, I ask you again
to please create a new thread.


Well then lets agree to disagree, I don't think I have anything more to
add on this context anyway.

--

Simon Lees (Simotek) http://simotek.net

Emergency Update Team keybase.io/simotek
SUSE Linux Adeliade Australia, UTC+9:30
GPG Fingerprint: 5B87 DB9D 88DC F606 E489 CEC5 0922 C246 02F0 014B

< Previous Next >
List Navigation