On Thu, Dec 2, 2010 at 6:31 PM, Adam Williamson <awilliam@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Thu, 2010-12-02 at 18:20 +0100, FranÃois Cami wrote: >> On Thu, Dec 2, 2010 at 6:03 PM, Adam Williamson <awilliam@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> > On Thu, 2010-12-02 at 13:20 +0100, FranÃois Cami wrote: >> > >> >> Of course, we could look at things differently: for a package to be >> >> marked critpath, it should have users or be a dependency of some other >> >> package with users. >> > >> > This is pretty inevitably implicit in the current definition of critpath >> > - packages that are necessary to boot the system and use it. :) Okay, >> > there's slightly unexpected cases like openldap, which isn't necessary >> > for most people to login and use their systems but gets brought in >> > because it's a dependency of various auth mechanisms which *optionally >> > support* LDAP, but even that is obviously used by >0 people. >> >> jlaska just gave me the list of packages marked critpath in rawhide: >> http://kojipkgs.fedoraproject.org/mash/rawhide-20101202/logs/critpath.txt >> 389-ds, cobbler, httpd, libvirt, mysql, postgresql, puppet, vsftpd are >> not in the list. My guess is therefore that most server packages are >> completely ignored by the critpath definition. And we have server >> users. > > Ah. I misread you: I thought you meant to add that to the current > definition of critpath packages, not to replace the current critpath > definition with simply "anything with users". Make that "anything with enough users for us to care", especially if said users participate in the process, and that's about it. >> >> And packages with enough known users should always land in critpath, >> >> otherwise we might break systems users depend on. >> > >> > That doesn't fit in with the current function-based definition, so your >> > proposal is to change that? >> >> Yes. Note that the current function-based definition is contained in >> the "have users"-based one, as long as Fedora is used on the desktop, >> that is. > > Right, but it massively increases the range of critpath packages (which > would only exacerbate the problem under discussion unless we made > critpath testing less rigorous), and loses the initial purpose of the > critpath policy. I think really what you want is the three-tier system > so that 'not important' packages can be allowed to go through without > testing, right? That, and catch regressions in updates to well-used packages before they're pushed. And that includes server packages. >> > but we don't really have any very reliable methods for >> > determining use of packages yet. >> >> We could extend smolt to do so. > > smolt's still opt-in and always will be, AFAIK, because there'd be way > too much of a Slashdot drama if it weren't. Yes it is and rightly so. However, it contains data about 200K active systems at the moment: http://smolts.org/static/stats/stats.html Data about CPU, RAM, Language, etc... But no data about packages yet. FranÃois -- devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
