Re: F38 proposal: Rpmautospec by Default (System-Wide Change proposal)

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



On Sun, Jan 01, 2023 at 12:06:51PM -0500, Neal Gompa wrote:
> On Sat, Dec 31, 2022 at 11:44 AM Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek
> <zbyszek@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> > On Sat, Dec 31, 2022 at 11:23:35AM -0500, Neal Gompa wrote:
> > > On Sat, Dec 31, 2022 at 11:17 AM Miro Hrončok <mhroncok@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > On 31. 12. 22 15:07, Josh Boyer wrote:
> > > > > On Fri, Dec 30, 2022 at 5:17 PM Neal Gompa <ngompa13@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > > > >>
> > > > >> On Fri, Dec 30, 2022 at 4:48 PM Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek
> > > > >> <zbyszek@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>> On Fri, Dec 30, 2022 at 02:10:52PM -0500, Neal Gompa wrote:
> > > > >>>> On Fri, Dec 30, 2022 at 2:02 PM Ben Cotton <bcotton@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > > > >>>>> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/Rpmautospec_by_Default
> > > > >>>> Have we made sure that when Red Hat forks Fedora packages for RHEL
> > > > >>>> that they don't truncate or eliminate the Git history anymore? Because I would
> > > > >>>> personally be very displeased if my historical attribution went away
> > > > >>>> because of broken processes like the one used to fork all the Fedora
> > > > >>>> Linux 34 packages for CentOS Stream 9.
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>> I can't speak for the RH folks who do the forking… It'd be great if
> > > > >>> somebody who knows how that's done could answer.
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>> Fedora is already using rpmautospec widely enough that (if it was to
> > > > >>> be problem at all), it must already be a problem.
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>> At the level of specific solutions, obviously the obvious answer is to
> > > > >>> keep the git history. It's in general a great of source of information
> > > > >>> and discarding that is just an error. But if somebody were really to do that,
> > > > >>> it's fairly trivial to undo the conversion and get a static changelog
> > > > >>> again by inserting the output of 'rpmautospec changelog' in the %changelog
> > > > >>> section.
> > > > >>>
> > > > >>
> > > > >> As they are the most prominent downstream we have, I would like this
> > > > >> resolved before changing Fedora's defaults.
> > > > >>
> > > > >> At the time we branched from Fedora Linux 34, there were very few
> > > > >> packages using rpmautospec and I don't think any that were kept used
> > > > >> rpmautospec. Now it is very obvious it would be a problem, so I would
> > > > >> like that fixed first. CentOS and RHEL infrastructure needs to account
> > > > >> for it properly and not gut the Git history.
> > > > >
> > > > > We can look into it, but at the moment this is unlikely to change on
> > > > > the CentOS Stream/RHEL side.
> > > >
> > > > Are the packages imported on SRPM level with the changelogs rendered?
> > > >
> > >
> > > They are not. It's done using distrobaker[1], which syncs Git content
> > > and lookaside data.
> > >
> > > Example commit:
> > > https://gitlab.com/redhat/centos-stream/rpms/pipewire/-/commit/67142e715ecacbf1c94c4d6f8000ef113c1e7c92
> > >
> > > [1]: https://github.com/fedora-eln/distrobaker
> >
> > I don't think that changes in Fedora should be held hostage by some downstream
> > utils. We know that the problem is solvable and in fact not hard at all. We
> > certainly can notify RHEL maintainers about this, which I did right now [1],
> > but actual implementation is something that we have no control of from the
> > Fedora side.
> >
> > [1] https://github.com/fedora-eln/distrobaker/issues/12
> >
> 
> I think it's absolutely reasonable to consider the effects of people
> forking the packages in a way where attribution is lost. Losing
> attribution and correct package history is just not acceptable to me.
> 
> In many respects, this is *extremely* personal to me, because all I
> *have* is that attribution. I don't make any money on my work in
> Fedora. Nobody pays me to do it. The absolute *least* anyone can do is
> respect my copyright and preserve the attribution and history.
> 
> I am insulted that you think that's an issue that can be hand-waved
> away. This is a hill I will die on.
>
> Fix it. And that means fundamentally changing how distrobaker works.
> Either preserve the whole Git history or always eliminate rpmautospec
> and expand the changelog when importing into RHEL. The current
> situation is simply not acceptable.

I fully support what you are saying. I do a lot of work in Fedora on my
free time too, and I would very much like for it to be attributed properly.
I also agree with the solutions you propose: I wrote the very same suggestions
in the issue I linked above. (I also think that the problem already exists,
*right now*, because rpmautospec is being used fairly widely, and if attributions
are stripped, this is not nice to those maintainers and also deprives downstream
users of useful information.)
I just don't think that we should ask Fedora contributors to make plans or
promises for a downstream distro. You are sending your complaints not to the
people who can fix the issue.

Zbyszek
_______________________________________________
devel mailing list -- devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Do not reply to spam, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue




[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
[Index of Archives]     [Fedora Announce]     [Fedora Users]     [Fedora Kernel]     [Fedora Testing]     [Fedora Formulas]     [Fedora PHP Devel]     [Kernel Development]     [Fedora Legacy]     [Fedora Maintainers]     [Fedora Desktop]     [PAM]     [Red Hat Development]     [Gimp]     [Yosemite News]

  Powered by Linux