Hey all --
So I took a first shot at a "Fedora to CPAN" mapping script. It's extremely basic right now, and I blatantly stole the page style from cvs.fedora.redhat.com and the icons from the wiki. However, the table itself is at the point where I thought I'd throw it out there for feedback. Release early, release often, right?
A couple caveats:
* packages / owners are pulled from owners.list in cvs * package version in Fedora is determined via the spec, also pulled from cvs * I have a widescreen monitor, so the table may be too wide for some * core packages ( < F-7 ) aren't taken into account
Pulling from cvs isn't optimal, but it works for now. There's still a bunch more to be done, e.g.:
* a "quicklink" to open bugs (rt and bz) * overall statistics would be neat * per-owner statistics would also be neat * something to make it more difficult for the email addys to be "harvested"
Anyways. Suggestions, feedback, and civil criticism welcome and requested :)
http://home.comcast.net/~ckweyl/test.html
-Chris
On Mon, May 21, 2007 at 09:32:51PM -0700, Chris Weyl wrote:
So I took a first shot at a "Fedora to CPAN" mapping script. It's extremely basic right now
Impressive and handy. Thanks.
It'd be nice to have a maintainer shame page where the number of out-of-date modules per owner is highlighted. If shaming doesn't encourage progress (and even if it does its not the way to motivate folks) then we can at least see how needs to have their load lightened.
On 5/22/07, Christopher Hicks chicks@chicks.net wrote:
On Mon, May 21, 2007 at 09:32:51PM -0700, Chris Weyl wrote:
So I took a first shot at a "Fedora to CPAN" mapping script. It's extremely basic right now
Impressive and handy. Thanks.
It'd be nice to have a maintainer shame page where the number of out-of-date modules per owner is highlighted. If shaming doesn't encourage progress (and even if it does its not the way to motivate folks) then we can at least see how needs to have their load lightened.
Well, I don't know if we need a "shame page"... I've found asking for updates to usually be as easy as filing a "update? pretty please?" bug. Do you see an area where we could improve as a whole in?
I'm going to poke around with seeing what statistics I can generate.
-Chris
On Tue, May 22, 2007 at 09:07:49PM -0700, Chris Weyl wrote:
Well, I don't know if we need a "shame page"... I've found asking for updates to usually be as easy as filing a "update? pretty please?" bug.
Yes yes.
Do you see an area where we could improve as a whole in?
I'm a totally happy customer! I've heard whining about the perl builds in Red Hat and Fedora, but I've been unscathed. The mod_perl updates were a pain once upon a time, but not in ages.
I'm going to poke around with seeing what statistics I can generate.
Cool.
On 5/26/07, Christopher Hicks chicks@chicks.net wrote:
On Tue, May 22, 2007 at 09:07:49PM -0700, Chris Weyl wrote:
Do you see an area where we could improve as a whole in?
I'm a totally happy customer! I've heard whining about the perl builds in Red Hat and Fedora, but I've been unscathed. The mod_perl updates were a pain once upon a time, but not in ages.
Still, I'm always open to constructive suggestions. Neither anyone nor anything is perfect :)
So... Still rather wimpy with the statistics, I'm afraid. All I really did was add a counter for the total # of packages (707!) at the top of the page, as well as a "last generated" bit. I've rigged it to run daily and push out to here until we find a more proper place to put it:
http://home.comcast.net/~ckweyl/fedora_perl.html
Again: * no non-CPAN module support yet (working on it) * works off of CVS, not packages in the repos * still definitely not a finished product
Is there anything else that would be useful? I'm thinking of having it spit out either a page per owner listing all their packages, or another large page with an index at the top and individual tables per owner. (Though part of me is resisting this -- it's contrary to what I'd like to see happen, that is, people taking ownership of perl as a whole in Fedora.)
-Chris
On Mon, 2007-05-28 at 11:25 -0700, Chris Weyl wrote:
Is there anything else that would be useful? I'm thinking of having it spit out either a page per owner listing all their packages, or another large page with an index at the top and individual tables per owner. (Though part of me is resisting this -- it's contrary to what I'd like to see happen, that is, people taking ownership of perl as a whole in Fedora.)
Well, I would certainly like to be able to see the perl packages I maintain, separate from the main list. :)
~spot
On 5/28/07, Tom spot Callaway tcallawa@redhat.com wrote:
On Mon, 2007-05-28 at 11:25 -0700, Chris Weyl wrote:
Is there anything else that would be useful? I'm thinking of having it spit out either a page per owner listing all their packages, or another large page with an index at the top and individual tables per owner. (Though part of me is resisting this -- it's contrary to what I'd like to see happen, that is, people taking ownership of perl as a whole in Fedora.)
Well, I would certainly like to be able to see the perl packages I maintain, separate from the main list. :)
Fine, fine, fine :) There's a _really_ rough list and simple breakout at:
http://home.comcast.net/~ckweyl/fedora/
-Chris
On Tue, May 29, 2007 at 11:16:40AM -0700, Chris Weyl wrote:
Fine, fine, fine :) There's a _really_ rough list and simple breakout at:
If you released code we could send you patches. :-/
On 5/30/07, Christopher Hicks chicks@chicks.net wrote:
On Tue, May 29, 2007 at 11:16:40AM -0700, Chris Weyl wrote:
Fine, fine, fine :) There's a _really_ rough list and simple breakout at:
If you released code we could send you patches. :-/
:) I'm poking around, trying to see what it'd take to get this into either Fedora cvs, or maybe as some sort of a "hosted project". No aversions to releasing things as tarballs, but having it in a RCS somewhere would make collaboration / patches so much easier.
-Chris
On Wed, May 30, 2007 at 12:51:54PM -0700, Chris Weyl wrote:
On 5/30/07, Christopher Hicks chicks@chicks.net wrote:
On Tue, May 29, 2007 at 11:16:40AM -0700, Chris Weyl wrote:
Fine, fine, fine :) There's a _really_ rough list and simple breakout at:
If you released code we could send you patches. :-/
:) I'm poking around, trying to see what it'd take to get this into either Fedora cvs, or maybe as some sort of a "hosted project". No aversions to releasing things as tarballs, but having it in a RCS somewhere would make collaboration / patches so much easier.
Sounds good. Thanks for what you've done so far. It is very slick and getting even better.
I'm assuming you've noticed that some of the POE package versions are dorked and show as %(rpmver)?
Another apparent issue is that we have no idea of what version of the module was current when a given version of fedora froze, but there may be enough module release history for some modules to figure that out. From here out we can just say "this is the version that was on CPAN on freeze day". I'll try to generate the data from backpan this weekend if nobody beats me to it. ;)
Thanks again all around.
On 5/30/07, Christopher Hicks chicks@chicks.net wrote:
On Wed, May 30, 2007 at 12:51:54PM -0700, Chris Weyl wrote:
:) I'm poking around, trying to see what it'd take to get this into either Fedora cvs, or maybe as some sort of a "hosted project". No aversions to releasing things as tarballs, but having it in a RCS somewhere would make collaboration / patches so much easier.
Sounds good. Thanks for what you've done so far. It is very slick and getting even better.
Thanks!
I just found http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Infrastructure/ProjectHosting; hopefully someone on fedora-devel-list will be able to tell me how to actually invoke the new project process :)
I'm assuming you've noticed that some of the POE package versions are dorked and show as %(rpmver)?
Yeah, um, that's me. The mapping script doesn't actually evaluate %{version} against the spec file, it simply looks for (V|v)ersion:. POE modules had this tendency to go from, say, 0.95, 0.96, 0.9601, 0.97... That was my classy way of avoiding epoch's. I'm working to reset that; it helps the bingos has largely switched to a more consistent versioning scheme.
Another apparent issue is that we have no idea of what version of the module was current when a given version of fedora froze, but there may be enough module release history for some modules to figure that out. From here out we can just say "this is the version that was on CPAN on freeze day". I'll try to generate the data from backpan this weekend if nobody beats me to it. ;)
Now that would be interesting for some modules -- what version a given Fedora release started out at vs where it is currently (or ended up at).
I'm also thinking a "devel not current against CPAN" list/alert would be nice.
Thanks again all around.
No problem. I'm holding you to your patches comment :)
-Chris
On 5/30/07, Chris Weyl cweyl@alumni.drew.edu wrote:
I just found http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Infrastructure/ProjectHosting; hopefully someone on fedora-devel-list will be able to tell me how to actually invoke the new project process :)
So, little status update. I've exchanged some email with Jesse Keating about this, sounds like the project hosting infrastructure is still in beta. An increasingly used beta, but still... :) However, it does sound like we may be able to get a "perl SIG infrastructure" project up and going. Once that happens, I'll import the code I've been working on to generate the status pages.
-Chris
perl-devel@lists.fedoraproject.org