Is there any interest in continuing to support conductor / aeolus-cli in Fedora? The packages are currently broken there and from what I gather the team's been more focused on development and releasing gems recently. Unless there are any objections, I will retire the packages. If there is demand for support in Fedora in the future, we can easily loop back around then.
-Mo
On 4/4/13 10:22 AM, Mo Morsi wrote:
Is there any interest in continuing to support conductor / aeolus-cli in Fedora? The packages are currently broken there and from what I gather the team's been more focused on development and releasing gems recently. Unless there are any objections, I will retire the packages. If there is demand for support in Fedora in the future, we can easily loop back around then.
While I'm sorry to see them go, I think it's the best course of action. They've been broken for a long time, and I think that having broken packages is considerably worse than having no packages. If someone were committed to maintaining them, they've been MIA for months.
I vote to pull them from Fedora, but to maybe think as we go forward about maybe continuing to package RPMs, just not in Fedora. The pure-Ruby approach / dev-tools approach is great for developers, but I'm not sure how well it will work for people wanting to run Aeolus "for real."
-- Matt
On 04/04/2013 11:34 AM, Matt Wagner wrote:
On 4/4/13 10:22 AM, Mo Morsi wrote:
Is there any interest in continuing to support conductor / aeolus-cli in Fedora? The packages are currently broken there and from what I gather the team's been more focused on development and releasing gems recently. Unless there are any objections, I will retire the packages. If there is demand for support in Fedora in the future, we can easily loop back around then.
While I'm sorry to see them go, I think it's the best course of action. They've been broken for a long time, and I think that having broken packages is considerably worse than having no packages. If someone were committed to maintaining them, they've been MIA for months.
I vote to pull them from Fedora, but to maybe think as we go forward about maybe continuing to package RPMs, just not in Fedora. The pure-Ruby approach / dev-tools approach is great for developers, but I'm not sure how well it will work for people wanting to run Aeolus "for real."
-- Matt
Yeah -- not only that, the list of conductor deps that are not in fedora has grown as well (tim, ldap_fluff, (shortly) alberich, etc.), so getting the packages working wouldn't just be a matter of fixing them, but also a matter of getting new dependencies into fedora at the same time.
Scott
On Thu, Apr 04, 2013 at 12:19:19PM -0400, Scott Seago wrote:
On 04/04/2013 11:34 AM, Matt Wagner wrote:
On 4/4/13 10:22 AM, Mo Morsi wrote:
Is there any interest in continuing to support conductor / aeolus-cli in Fedora? The packages are currently broken there and from what I gather the team's been more focused on development and releasing gems recently. Unless there are any objections, I will retire the packages. If there is demand for support in Fedora in the future, we can easily loop back around then.
While I'm sorry to see them go, I think it's the best course of action. They've been broken for a long time, and I think that having broken packages is considerably worse than having no packages. If someone were committed to maintaining them, they've been MIA for months.
I vote to pull them from Fedora, but to maybe think as we go forward about maybe continuing to package RPMs, just not in Fedora. The pure-Ruby approach / dev-tools approach is great for developers, but I'm not sure how well it will work for people wanting to run Aeolus "for real."
-- Matt
Yeah -- not only that, the list of conductor deps that are not in fedora has grown as well (tim, ldap_fluff, (shortly) alberich, etc.), so getting the packages working wouldn't just be a matter of fixing them, but also a matter of getting new dependencies into fedora at the same time.
Scott
Also AFAIK no one has tested an aeolus-configure-based install since 2012. So even if we had RPMs it's not likely that they'd be consumable without additional effort on the configure front.
But yeah, the fact that we didn't have packages for the external deps really stifled RPM package maintenance. Around that time we were shifting to the dev-tools-based delivery/install which added to our indifference toward RPM.
Another vote for 'retire' from me. Should probably also include aeolus-configure.
Steve|eggs
Steve Linabery slinaber@redhat.com writes:
On Thu, Apr 04, 2013 at 12:19:19PM -0400, Scott Seago wrote:
On 04/04/2013 11:34 AM, Matt Wagner wrote:
On 4/4/13 10:22 AM, Mo Morsi wrote:
Is there any interest in continuing to support conductor / aeolus-cli in Fedora? The packages are currently broken there and from what I gather the team's been more focused on development and releasing gems recently. Unless there are any objections, I will retire the packages. If there is demand for support in Fedora in the future, we can easily loop back around then.
While I'm sorry to see them go, I think it's the best course of action. They've been broken for a long time, and I think that having broken packages is considerably worse than having no packages. If someone were committed to maintaining them, they've been MIA for months.
I vote to pull them from Fedora, but to maybe think as we go forward about maybe continuing to package RPMs, just not in Fedora. The pure-Ruby approach / dev-tools approach is great for developers, but I'm not sure how well it will work for people wanting to run Aeolus "for real."
-- Matt
Yeah -- not only that, the list of conductor deps that are not in fedora has grown as well (tim, ldap_fluff, (shortly) alberich, etc.), so getting the packages working wouldn't just be a matter of fixing them, but also a matter of getting new dependencies into fedora at the same time.
Scott
Also AFAIK no one has tested an aeolus-configure-based install since 2012. So even if we had RPMs it's not likely that they'd be consumable without additional effort on the configure front.
But yeah, the fact that we didn't have packages for the external deps really stifled RPM package maintenance. Around that time we were shifting to the dev-tools-based delivery/install which added to our indifference toward RPM.
Another vote for 'retire' from me. Should probably also include aeolus-configure.
Steve|eggs
+1 to killing configure in addition to the others.
I also remember dbomatic and/or delayed_job didn't work either since some of the gem dependencies have changed out underneath as well.
Dne 4.4.2013 16:22, Mo Morsi napsal(a):
Is there any interest in continuing to support conductor / aeolus-cli in Fedora? The packages are currently broken there and from what I gather the team's been more focused on development and releasing gems recently. Unless there are any objections, I will retire the packages. If there is demand for support in Fedora in the future, we can easily loop back around then.
-Mo
Mo, could you please take an action and retire the packages in F19/Rawhide?
Thanks
Vít
On 04/26/2013 11:22 AM, Vít Ondruch wrote:
Dne 4.4.2013 16:22, Mo Morsi napsal(a):
Is there any interest in continuing to support conductor / aeolus-cli in Fedora? The packages are currently broken there and from what I gather the team's been more focused on development and releasing gems recently. Unless there are any objections, I will retire the packages. If there is demand for support in Fedora in the future, we can easily loop back around then.
-Mo
Mo, could you please take an action and retire the packages in F19/Rawhide?
Thanks
Vít
Ah yes, sorry have been focusing on guestconv [1] recently and this got sidelined. Anyways just went in and retired / filed the request to block further builds.
-Mo
On Mon, Apr 29, 2013 at 11:34:20AM -0400, Mo Morsi wrote:
On 04/26/2013 11:22 AM, Vít Ondruch wrote:
Dne 4.4.2013 16:22, Mo Morsi napsal(a):
Is there any interest in continuing to support conductor / aeolus-cli in Fedora? The packages are currently broken there and from what I gather the team's been more focused on development and releasing gems recently. Unless there are any objections, I will retire the packages. If there is demand for support in Fedora in the future, we can easily loop back around then.
-Mo
Mo, could you please take an action and retire the packages in F19/Rawhide?
Thanks
Vít
Ah yes, sorry have been focusing on guestconv [1] recently and this got sidelined. Anyways just went in and retired / filed the request to block further builds.
-Mo
+1 thanks mmorsi
aeolus-devel@lists.fedorahosted.org
-
John Eckersberg -
Matt Wagner -
Mo Morsi -
Scott Seago -
steve linabery -
Vít Ondruch