#3903: change component owner in bugzilla
by Fedora Release Engineering
#3903: change component owner in bugzilla
----------------------+-----------------------------------------------------
Reporter: mmaslano | Owner: rel-eng(a)lists.fedoraproject.org
Type: task | Status: new
Milestone: | Component: other
Keywords: |
----------------------+-----------------------------------------------------
Could you create perl-fedora-maint as bug owner for all my perl-* modules
and perl component? I'm sharing bugs with my colleagues in RHEL and we'd
like to have it also for Fedora. I suppose set up mailing list is also
needed.
This should be applied only for perl modules, where I am an owner of the
package. Not only co-maintainer.
The group perl-fedora-maint should include mmaslano, ppisar, psabata.
--
Ticket URL: <https://fedorahosted.org/rel-eng/ticket/3903>
Fedora Release Engineering <http://fedorahosted.org/rel-eng>
Release Engineering for the Fedora Project
9 years
#5214: Setup koji tags and repo for Docs
by Fedora Release Engineering
#5214: Setup koji tags and repo for Docs
-----------------------------+------------------------
Reporter: crantila | Owner: rel-eng@…
Type: task | Status: new
Milestone: Fedora 18 Alpha | Component: koji
Keywords: docs | Blocked By:
Blocking: |
-----------------------------+------------------------
Posted here as per [https://fedorahosted.org/fedora-
infrastructure/ticket/3320]
'''phenomenon'''
To support simpler and more robust updates to docs.fp.o, need to setup
koji to handle a new tag and repo for Docs.
'''implementation recommendation'''
<Sparks> What would be required to stand up a separate instance of koji
for Docs? <dgilmore> Sparks: why would you want a seperate instance?
<dgilmore> Sparks: i dont see any valid reason to do so <Sparks> dgilmore:
For the Docs website. Publican has the ability publish documentation from
packages (separate repo from the Fedora repo) for the website. We want to
replace the git repo that operates it now. <dgilmore> Sparks: and why does
that need a seperate koji? <Sparks> The git repo has gotten HUGE and is
becoming an issue. <dgilmore> Sparks: so, why does that mean a seperate
koji instance <dgilmore> Sparks: we could use a seperate tag and targets
in koji <dgilmore> i dont see why it would need its own koji <Sparks>
dgilmore: It's either that or try to get everyone setup as packagers.
<dgilmore> Sparks: get everyone setup as packagers <Sparks> dgilmore:
Except that they really won't be packagers. <dgilmore> Sparks: though you
dont need to be a a packager to get a koji cert <dgilmore> you just need
fas <dgilmore> Sparks: what would be the workflow? <Sparks> dgilmore:
Okay, and with that we can send packages through koji and tag them
separately? <Sparks> dgilmore: Basically we just tell Publican to build
the package and submit it to koji. The Publican software does all the
work. <dgilmore> Sparks: I still really dont know what your trying to do.
pretend im an idiot(not really that hard) and explain what it is and how
it should work <Sparks> dgilmore: I'm not far off... <Sparks> dgilmore: So
Publican will make an SRPM package, submit it to koji destined for a repo.
Our Publican backend will install those packages and publish the data to
the website. <Sparks> ...as I understand it <dgilmore> Sparks: so we would
need to set up seperate tags and tagets for it, defining a koji policy
allowing srpms to be built. likely we would add a new group to koji and
add people allowed to build docs to it and limit access to the
tags/targets to people in that group <dgilmore> Sparks: so its all doable
<Sparks> dgilmore: Well that's a lot easier. :) <Sparks> dgilmore: We
already have a group in FAS for people that should have access (docs-
publishers). Should I open a ticket? <dgilmore> Sparks: koji doesnt know
anything about fas <dgilmore> Sparks: please file a ticket. We wont be
able to make changes until after f17 is done <Sparks> dgilmore: That's
fine. We're not completely ready for the transition so after F17 would be
good. <Sparks> dgilmore: Thanks!
--
Ticket URL: <https://fedorahosted.org/rel-eng/ticket/5214>
Fedora Release Engineering <http://fedorahosted.org/rel-eng>
Release Engineering for the Fedora Project
9 years, 8 months
#3624: fullfilelist changes
by Fedora Release Engineering
#3624: fullfilelist changes
-------------------------+--------------------------------------------------
Reporter: mmcgrath | Owner: rel-eng(a)lists.fedoraproject.org
Type: enhancement | Status: new
Milestone: | Component: other
Keywords: |
-------------------------+--------------------------------------------------
After each push, we need to run the following command:
rsync -r . > fullfilelist
This should overwrite the fullfilelist that's there and isn't very useful
at the moment:
http://download.fedora.redhat.com/pub/fedora/fullfilelist
We can't do this via a cron job, it has to go out after each push so it
needs to be added to those scripts.
--
Ticket URL: <https://fedorahosted.org/rel-eng/ticket/3624>
Fedora Release Engineering <http://fedorahosted.org/rel-eng>
Release Engineering for the Fedora Project
9 years, 8 months
#5418: Adopt policy that SCM request should be accepted from authorized users only
by Fedora Release Engineering
#5418: Adopt policy that SCM request should be accepted from authorized users only
--------------------+------------------------
Reporter: ppisar | Owner: rel-eng@…
Type: defect | Status: new
Milestone: | Component: git
Keywords: SCM | Blocked By:
Blocking: |
--------------------+------------------------
FESCo ticket [https://fedorahosted.org/fesco/ticket/981] moved to rel-eng
quee.
= Phenomenon
Release engineers proceed SCM request from non-authorized applicants.
= Background Analysis
spot added SCM change request for 4 packages he does not own nor co-
maintain and release engineer has processed the requests. The requests
were to create new branches owned by master owners.
Example [https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=835544#c7]:
{{{
From: Tom "spot" Callaway 2012-12-11 21:50:00 GMT
Package Change Request
======================
Package Name: perl-Pod-Markdown
New Branches: f16 f17
Owners: jplesnik mmaslano ppisar psabata
InitialCC: perl-sig
From: Jon Ciesla 2012-12-12 13:14:20 GMT
Git done (by process-git-requests).
}}}
This undermines regular maintainers' rights and obligations because they
cannot even be sure which branches their packages exist and which they are
responsible for. This conflicts with current policy for creating
additional branches on behalf third persons (the third person, owner of
new branch, asks current owner and current owner submits SCM request.)
= Implementation recommendation
Release engineers will accept SCM changes only from requesters who own or
co-maintaint the package.
--
Ticket URL: <https://fedorahosted.org/rel-eng/ticket/5418>
Fedora Release Engineering <http://fedorahosted.org/rel-eng>
Release Engineering for the Fedora Project
9 years, 8 months
#4084: gcc multiarch broken dep
by Fedora Release Engineering
#4084: gcc multiarch broken dep
-----------------------+----------------------------------------------------
Reporter: mschwendt | Owner: rel-eng(a)lists.fedoraproject.org
Type: defect | Status: new
Milestone: | Component: mash
Keywords: |
-----------------------+----------------------------------------------------
There is a discrepancy between what is pushed to stable dist repos and to
updates-testing. With the latest "gcc" test-update, F-14 is affected, too
(which means this is not specific to F-13).
gcc-gfortran.i686 is available in x86_64 development/14 but not x86_64
updates/testing/14. The version-specific dependency in it is unresolvable
deps if it isn't updated.
What is the cause of it? Can it be fixed in the compose tools? Or is a
self-"Obsoletes" (which is not arch-specific by default) in gcc-gfortran
the only cure?
http://download.fedora.redhat.com/pub/fedora/linux/development/14/x86_64/...
{{{
[ ] gcc-4.5.1-1.fc14.x86_64.rpm 13-Aug-2010 14:51 14M
[ ] gcc-c++-4.5.1-1.fc14.x86_64.rpm 13-Aug-2010 14:50 5.1M
[X] gcc-gfortran-4.5.1-1.fc14.i686.rpm 13-Aug-2010 14:56
4.4M
[ ] gcc-gfortran-4.5.1-1.fc14.x86_64.rpm 13-Aug-2010 14:54
5.0M
[ ] gcc-gnat-4.5.1-1.fc14.x86_64.rpm 13-Aug-2010 14:52
9.9M
[ ] gcc-java-4.5.1-1.fc14.x86_64.rpm 13-Aug-2010 14:56
4.0M
[ ] gcc-objc++-4.5.1-1.fc14.x86_64.rpm 13-Aug-2010 14:56
4.3M
[ ] gcc-objc-4.5.1-1.fc14.x86_64.rpm 13-Aug-2010 14:57
3.9M
[ ] libgcc-4.5.1-1.fc14.i686.rpm 13-Aug-2010 14:53 61K
[ ] libgcc-4.5.1-1.fc14.x86_64.rpm 13-Aug-2010 14:51 52K
[ ] libgcj-4.5.1-1.fc14.i686.rpm 13-Aug-2010 14:54 17M
[ ] libgcj-4.5.1-1.fc14.x86_64.rpm 13-Aug-2010 14:55 19M
[ ] libgcj-devel-4.5.1-1.fc14.i686.rpm 13-Aug-2010 14:50
1.5M
[ ] libgcj-devel-4.5.1-1.fc14.x86_64.rpm 13-Aug-2010 14:51
1.5M
[ ] libgcj-src-4.5.1-1.fc14.x86_64.rpm 13-Aug-2010 14:51
12M
}}}
http://download.fedora.redhat.com/pub/fedora/linux/development/14/x86_64/...
{{{
[ ] gcc-4.5.1-3.fc14.x86_64.rpm 07-Sep-2010 12:36 14M
[ ] gcc-c++-4.5.1-3.fc14.x86_64.rpm 07-Sep-2010 12:39 5.1M
[ ] gcc-gfortran-4.5.1-3.fc14.x86_64.rpm 07-Sep-2010 12:42
5.0M
[ ] gcc-gnat-4.5.1-3.fc14.x86_64.rpm 07-Sep-2010 12:31
9.9M
[ ] gcc-java-4.5.1-3.fc14.x86_64.rpm 07-Sep-2010 12:29
4.0M
[ ] gcc-objc++-4.5.1-3.fc14.x86_64.rpm 07-Sep-2010 12:35
4.3M
[ ] gcc-objc-4.5.1-3.fc14.x86_64.rpm 07-Sep-2010 12:34
3.9M
[ ] libgcc-4.5.1-3.fc14.i686.rpm 07-Sep-2010 12:33 62K
[ ] libgcc-4.5.1-3.fc14.x86_64.rpm 07-Sep-2010 12:33 52K
[ ] libgcj-4.5.1-3.fc14.i686.rpm 07-Sep-2010 12:29 17M
[ ] libgcj-4.5.1-3.fc14.x86_64.rpm 07-Sep-2010 12:35 19M
[ ] libgcj-devel-4.5.1-3.fc14.i686.rpm 07-Sep-2010 12:29
1.5M
[ ] libgcj-devel-4.5.1-3.fc14.x86_64.rpm 07-Sep-2010 12:37
1.5M
[ ] libgcj-src-4.5.1-3.fc14.x86_64.rpm 07-Sep-2010 12:41
12M
}}}
--
Ticket URL: <https://fedorahosted.org/rel-eng/ticket/4084>
Fedora Release Engineering <http://fedorahosted.org/rel-eng>
Release Engineering for the Fedora Project
9 years, 8 months
#3761: add gpg signature for .treeinfo file and/or add CHECKSUM file for unsigned content of images
by Fedora Release Engineering
#3761: add gpg signature for .treeinfo file and/or add CHECKSUM file for unsigned
content of images
----------------------+-----------------------------------------------------
Reporter: jkeating | Owner: rel-eng(a)lists.fedoraproject.org
Type: task | Status: new
Milestone: | Component: other
Keywords: meeting |
----------------------+-----------------------------------------------------
Description of problem:
Currently the only way to verify the contents of .treeinfo or the
installer
images is to download the .iso and the regarding -CHECKSUM file and check
it.
But e.g. preupgrade does not download the .iso but the *.img files, the
kernel
and the .treeinfo directly from a mirror. Therefore it is also not
possible to
easily verify these files. I guess the preupgrade way of updating is
somehow
popular, therefore it should be possible to do this securely.
I filed a bug against preupgrade for not verifying anything and not
announcing
this here: bug 509338
--
Ticket URL: <https://fedorahosted.org/rel-eng/ticket/3761>
Fedora Release Engineering <http://fedorahosted.org/rel-eng>
Release Engineering for the Fedora Project
9 years, 8 months
#4267: collectd in EPEL
by Fedora Release Engineering
#4267: collectd in EPEL
----------------------+-----------------------------------------------------
Reporter: mmcgrath | Owner: rel-eng(a)lists.fedoraproject.org
Type: task | Status: new
Milestone: | Component: mash
Keywords: |
----------------------+-----------------------------------------------------
Can we get collectd in EPEL set to disable multi-lib? It has become an
issue on EPEL where installing "collectd" via yum creates conflicts it
shouldn't.
--
Ticket URL: <https://fedorahosted.org/rel-eng/ticket/4267>
Fedora Release Engineering <http://fedorahosted.org/rel-eng>
Release Engineering for the Fedora Project
9 years, 10 months
#5636: Use a staging area for test composes and safe practices when naming them
by Fedora Release Engineering
#5636: Use a staging area for test composes and safe practices when naming them
-----------------------------+------------------------
Reporter: kparal | Owner: rel-eng@…
Type: task | Status: new
Milestone: Fedora 19 Final | Component: other
Keywords: | Blocked By:
Blocking: |
-----------------------------+------------------------
Summary: There was a hiccup for F19 TC3 compose. First it was created with
an old anaconda, then it was deleted and created with a new anaconda. The
announcement was sent only afterwards. Unfortunately the mirrors do not
heed announcements, they periodically sync everything. For Brno office our
mirror synced the old TC3 -> we came to work -> saw TC3 announcement ->
saw TC3 on our local mirror -> tested the (outdated) TC3 version for the
whole day -> and *by pure chance* learned that we have been using an
outdated compose (and wasted a day's work) at the end of the day.
I don't mean to blame anyone. It was unfortunate, and I'd like to improve
our workflow to minimize a chance of that happening again.
I have heard a solution "If you download images before announcement, make
sure they match the upstream checksums after the announcement is out".
First, a lot of people (e.g. us) don't download images manually, our
mirror does. So this essentially means checking timestamps or checksums
for every compose that we sync. That 1) requires some time spent for
dozens of individuals 2) is error-prone, because *nobody* will do that
every time, like a machine. Can we do better?
I see two very simple solutions and they can be combined:
1. Use a "staging area" for new composes. It's really simple - create a
directory that is not world-readable (thus not mirrored) and create the
compose there. Once you are sure everything looks OK, move the compose to
the correct directory. The other benefit is that this is nearly atomic,
thus making sure we don't have half-synced mirrors.
2. Once something is public, don't change contents. It might happen that
we publish something in error. But this is the same situation as in source
tarballs for software projects. You can never change it, because you never
know if somebody hasn't downloaded it in the (albeit short) meantime. You
can delete, sure, but the fixed file/tarball/compose should always have a
bumped version. There's no problem in that, really. If TC3 is published in
error, delete it if you want, and create TC3.1 or TC4. It's just a safety
practice and we don't mind, really, quite the opposite. This is a risk-
prevention.
If we combine these approaches, I believe there is no actual increase in
your workload (these are just work approaches, but no extra load) and we
increase the reliability of our tools and processes.
Thanks.
--
Ticket URL: <https://fedorahosted.org/rel-eng/ticket/5636>
Fedora Release Engineering <http://fedorahosted.org/rel-eng>
Release Engineering for the Fedora Project
9 years, 11 months
#4324: Change product string in pungi for better syslinux usability
by Fedora Release Engineering
#4324: Change product string in pungi for better syslinux usability
-------------------+--------------------------------------------------------
Reporter: duffy | Owner: rel-eng(a)lists.fedoraproject.org
Type: task | Status: new
Milestone: | Component: other
Keywords: |
-------------------+--------------------------------------------------------
Right now when you boot Fedora live media or otherwise call up Syslinux,
you are greeted with:
"Welcome to Fedora-14-x86_64-Live-Desktop!"
It's not the most welcoming message though because the string is a bit
unwieldy and hard-to-read. Syslinux pulls from the PRODUCT string produced
via pungi:
scripts/mk-images.x86: sed -i "s/@PRODUCT@/$PRODUCT/g"
$MBD_BOOTTREE/syslinux.cfg
I was hoping that string produced by pungi could be cleaned up a bit to be
more friendly. Some examples I think that would be better:
Fedora 14 (32-bit)
Fedora 14 (64-bit)
Fedora 14 (32-bit DVD)
Fedora 14 (64-bit DVD)
Fedora 14: KDE Plasma (32-bit)
Fedora 14: KDE Plasma (64-bit)
Fedora 14: LXDE (32-bit)
Fedora 14: LXDE (64-bit)
Fedora 14: Xfce (32-bit)
Fedora 14: Xfce (64-bit)
Fedora 14: Electronic Lab (32-bit)
Fedora 14: Electronic Lab (64-bit)
Fedora 14: Design Suite (32-bit)
Fedora 14: Design Suite (64-bit)
Fedora 14: Sugar on a Stick (32-bit)
Fedora 14: Sugar on a Stick (64-bit)
Fedora 14: Games Spin (32-bit)
Fedora 14: Games Spin (64-bit)
Fedora 14: Security Lab (32-bit)
Fedora 14: Security Lab (64-bit)
So the rules I'm suggesting for the strings:
- The default desktop is called simply "Fedora $VERSION ($ARCH)"
- Any non-default spins are called "Fedora $VERSION: $NAME_OF_SPIN
($ARCH)"
- The spin name is derived from either the http://fedoraproject.org/en
/get-fedora-options#desktops get.fpo options page or the
spins.fedoraproject.org full name for the spin. (KDE is probably updating
theirs to KDE Plasma as reflected in example strings above.)
- Put the arch in () after the name of the spin. Where arch is '32-bit',
'64-bit', 'Power PC', etc. The arch names here are suggested to be
consistent with what the downloads are labeled on our main web pages
(get.fpo and spins.fpo)
- If it's live media, don't indicate that, don't point it out. Only
indicate if it's a DVD.
If it's DVD, point it out after the arch in the ( )
- $VERSION should be a whole number without decimals for a final release.
For test releases / release candidates it would be nice to indicate
something like, '14.92 RC1' '14.91 Nightly 06 Jan 2011' but that's up to
your discretion!
This is where the text will appear in syslinux:
https://fedoraproject.org/w/uploads/3/3d/Installux-syslinux-
prop1-proto1-ss2.png
What do you think?
--
Ticket URL: <https://fedorahosted.org/rel-eng/ticket/4324>
Fedora Release Engineering <http://fedorahosted.org/rel-eng>
Release Engineering for the Fedora Project
10 years, 1 month