$ rpm -q python-kid python-kid-0.9-2.centos4
on buildsys.fedoraproject.org would benefit from an update to 0.9.5 which includes xml related fixes and makes it possible to create pages that don't fail in the w3c validator.
$ rpm -q --whatrequires python-kid repoview-0.5.1-1.centos4
On Thu, 15 Mar 2007 22:08:12 +0100, Michael Schwendt wrote:
$ rpm -q python-kid python-kid-0.9-2.centos4
on buildsys.fedoraproject.org would benefit from an update to 0.9.5 which includes xml related fixes and makes it possible to create pages that don't fail in the w3c validator.
$ rpm -q --whatrequires python-kid repoview-0.5.1-1.centos4
http://home.arcor.de/ms2002sep/tmp/el4-extras/noarch/python-kid-0.9.5-0.1.el...
Source rpms and build requirements here: http://home.arcor.de/ms2002sep/tmp/el4-extras/
Michael Schwendt wrote:
On Thu, 15 Mar 2007 22:08:12 +0100, Michael Schwendt wrote:
$ rpm -q python-kid python-kid-0.9-2.centos4
on buildsys.fedoraproject.org would benefit from an update to 0.9.5 which includes xml related fixes and makes it possible to create pages that don't fail in the w3c validator.
$ rpm -q --whatrequires python-kid repoview-0.5.1-1.centos4
http://home.arcor.de/ms2002sep/tmp/el4-extras/noarch/python-kid-0.9.5-0.1.el...
Source rpms and build requirements here: http://home.arcor.de/ms2002sep/tmp/el4-extras/
I'm not sure I fully understand what problem this solves. Can you give me an example?
-Mike
On Mon, 26 Mar 2007 22:47:20 -0500, Mike McGrath wrote:
Michael Schwendt wrote:
On Thu, 15 Mar 2007 22:08:12 +0100, Michael Schwendt wrote:
$ rpm -q python-kid python-kid-0.9-2.centos4
on buildsys.fedoraproject.org would benefit from an update to 0.9.5 which includes xml related fixes and makes it possible to create pages that don't fail in the w3c validator.
$ rpm -q --whatrequires python-kid repoview-0.5.1-1.centos4
http://home.arcor.de/ms2002sep/tmp/el4-extras/noarch/python-kid-0.9.5-0.1.el...
Source rpms and build requirements here: http://home.arcor.de/ms2002sep/tmp/el4-extras/
I'm not sure I fully understand what problem this solves. Can you give me an example?
Sure. It's
versus
The former was created with unmodified software on buildsys.f.o, while the latter was created with my modified repoview including an updated python-kid.
On Tue, 27 Mar 2007 12:02:20 +0200, Michael Schwendt wrote:
On Mon, 26 Mar 2007 22:47:20 -0500, Mike McGrath wrote:
Michael Schwendt wrote:
On Thu, 15 Mar 2007 22:08:12 +0100, Michael Schwendt wrote:
$ rpm -q python-kid python-kid-0.9-2.centos4
on buildsys.fedoraproject.org would benefit from an update to 0.9.5 which includes xml related fixes and makes it possible to create pages that don't fail in the w3c validator.
$ rpm -q --whatrequires python-kid repoview-0.5.1-1.centos4
http://home.arcor.de/ms2002sep/tmp/el4-extras/noarch/python-kid-0.9.5-0.1.el...
Source rpms and build requirements here: http://home.arcor.de/ms2002sep/tmp/el4-extras/
I'm not sure I fully understand what problem this solves. Can you give me an example?
Sure. It's
versus
The former was created with unmodified software on buildsys.f.o, while the latter was created with my modified repoview including an updated python-kid.
So, what is the formal procedure for requesting a package update on the buildsys server like described above and getting an official and final reply?
Michael Schwendt wrote:
On Tue, 27 Mar 2007 12:02:20 +0200, Michael Schwendt wrote:
On Mon, 26 Mar 2007 22:47:20 -0500, Mike McGrath wrote:
Michael Schwendt wrote:
On Thu, 15 Mar 2007 22:08:12 +0100, Michael Schwendt wrote:
$ rpm -q python-kid python-kid-0.9-2.centos4
on buildsys.fedoraproject.org would benefit from an update to 0.9.5 which includes xml related fixes and makes it possible to create pages that don't fail in the w3c validator.
$ rpm -q --whatrequires python-kid repoview-0.5.1-1.centos4
http://home.arcor.de/ms2002sep/tmp/el4-extras/noarch/python-kid-0.9.5-0.1.el...
Source rpms and build requirements here: http://home.arcor.de/ms2002sep/tmp/el4-extras/
I'm not sure I fully understand what problem this solves. Can you give me an example?
Sure. It's
versus
The former was created with unmodified software on buildsys.f.o, while the latter was created with my modified repoview including an updated python-kid.
So, what is the formal procedure for requesting a package update on the buildsys server like described above and getting an official and final reply?
Get someone upstream (RHEL) to accept the package changes. buildsys is going away in days anyway after koji goes live.
-Mike
On Thu, 05 Apr 2007 09:32:03 -0500, Mike McGrath wrote:
Michael Schwendt wrote:
On Tue, 27 Mar 2007 12:02:20 +0200, Michael Schwendt wrote:
On Mon, 26 Mar 2007 22:47:20 -0500, Mike McGrath wrote:
Michael Schwendt wrote:
On Thu, 15 Mar 2007 22:08:12 +0100, Michael Schwendt wrote:
$ rpm -q python-kid python-kid-0.9-2.centos4
on buildsys.fedoraproject.org would benefit from an update to 0.9.5 which includes xml related fixes and makes it possible to create pages that don't fail in the w3c validator.
$ rpm -q --whatrequires python-kid repoview-0.5.1-1.centos4
http://home.arcor.de/ms2002sep/tmp/el4-extras/noarch/python-kid-0.9.5-0.1.el...
Source rpms and build requirements here: http://home.arcor.de/ms2002sep/tmp/el4-extras/
I'm not sure I fully understand what problem this solves. Can you give me an example?
Sure. It's
versus
The former was created with unmodified software on buildsys.f.o, while the latter was created with my modified repoview including an updated python-kid.
So, what is the formal procedure for requesting a package update on the buildsys server like described above and getting an official and final reply?
Get someone upstream (RHEL) to accept the package changes. buildsys is going away in days anyway after koji goes live.
-Mike
The package is not in RHEL and not in CentOS either. It is the Fedora package built for CentOS.
Luke Macken's updates system also uses python-kid, and would benefit from the minor version upgrade, too.
On Thu, 5 Apr 2007 17:23:31 +0200, Michael Schwendt wrote:
So, what is the formal procedure for requesting a package update on the buildsys server like described above and getting an official and final reply?
Get someone upstream (RHEL) to accept the package changes. buildsys is going away in days anyway after koji goes live.
-MikeThe package is not in RHEL and not in CentOS either. It is the Fedora package built for CentOS.
Luke Macken's updates system also uses python-kid, and would benefit from the minor version upgrade, too.
Why is it so damned difficult to get a single package updated although I even provided the prepared rpms? This is turning into a negative experience for me.
Michael Schwendt wrote:
On Thu, 5 Apr 2007 17:23:31 +0200, Michael Schwendt wrote:
Why is it so damned difficult to get a single package updated although I even provided the prepared rpms? This is turning into a negative experience for me.
Oh I don't know 1) Its not actually causing problems for people 2) It means we have to alter the OS with a non-standard RPM.
-Mike
On Thu, 10 May 2007 09:14:41 -0500, Mike McGrath wrote:
On Thu, 5 Apr 2007 17:23:31 +0200, Michael Schwendt wrote:
Why is it so damned difficult to get a single package updated although I even provided the prepared rpms? This is turning into a negative experience for me.
Oh I don't know
- Its not actually causing problems for people
Why do I need to repeat it again? It creates bad html pages for repoview, which don't pass the w3c validator. Could it be that you ignored my examples when I posted them weeks ago?
- It means we have to alter the OS with a non-standard RPM.
The installed older version is non-standard, too. It comes from a private repository.
The createrepo upgrade is non-standard, too.
When I used a local copy of Yum 2.6.x to get something done, I was flamed. When I ask for an official update of an installed rpm, I need a lot of energy to run against closed doors.
Michael Schwendt wrote:
On Thu, 10 May 2007 09:14:41 -0500, Mike McGrath wrote:
On Thu, 5 Apr 2007 17:23:31 +0200, Michael Schwendt wrote:
Why is it so damned difficult to get a single package updated although I even provided the prepared rpms? This is turning into a negative experience for me.
Oh I don't know
- Its not actually causing problems for people
Why do I need to repeat it again? It creates bad html pages for repoview, which don't pass the w3c validator. Could it be that you ignored my examples when I posted them weeks ago?
- It means we have to alter the OS with a non-standard RPM.
The installed older version is non-standard, too. It comes from a private repository.
The createrepo upgrade is non-standard, too.
When I used a local copy of Yum 2.6.x to get something done, I was flamed. When I ask for an official update of an installed rpm, I need a lot of energy to run against closed doors.
You weren't flamed, you were denied. There is a big difference. Dennis (Our buildsystem officer) and I discussed it and decided the update was not worth the risk (all updates carry risk). I'm sorry but your local copy of yum 2.6 is not supported by the Fedora Infrastructure team.
-Mike
On Thu, 10 May 2007 09:40:50 -0500, Mike McGrath wrote:
When I used a local copy of Yum 2.6.x to get something done, I was flamed. When I ask for an official update of an installed rpm, I need a lot of energy to run against closed doors.
You weren't flamed, you were denied. There is a big difference. Dennis (Our buildsystem officer) and I discussed it and decided the update was not worth the risk (all updates carry risk).
What risk? Where can I read about that? Dennis has not replied to my public mail either.
Currently, repoview is the only package that requires python-kid on that machine. Who decides on what packages from that mysterious private repo are "supported" on that machine or not? Seth?
I'm sorry but your local copy of yum 2.6 is not supported by the Fedora Infrastructure team.
That "team" has never before said anything about it. The API is needed as the backend for the Extras multilib resolver, Extras repoclosure, ... and some other tools. But maybe you misunderstand.
Perhaps I should drop the ball at this point and declare the code unsupported, too. As I said before, this is turning into a negative experience for me.
Michael Schwendt wrote:
On Thu, 10 May 2007 09:40:50 -0500, Mike McGrath wrote:
What risk? Where can I read about that? Dennis has not replied to my public mail either.
Currently, repoview is the only package that requires python-kid on that machine. Who decides on what packages from that mysterious private repo are "supported" on that machine or not? Seth?
Anyone with admin access to that box. If someone wants to install the RPM on that box and make sure it works they are welcome to do so.
I'm sorry but your local copy of yum 2.6 is not supported by the Fedora Infrastructure team.
That "team" has never before said anything about it. The API is needed as the backend for the Extras multilib resolver, Extras repoclosure, ... and some other tools. But maybe you misunderstand.
Perhaps I should drop the ball at this point and declare the code unsupported, too. As I said before, this is turning into a negative experience for me.
Ok clearly there's been some miscommunication because I have no idea what you're talking about. Please tell us how we can re-create the problem ourselves (and broken xml isn't what I'm talking about) What commands do I need to run? What should I get? What do I actually get?
-Mike
On Thu, 10 May 2007 10:18:56 -0500, Mike McGrath wrote:
machine. Who decides on what packages from that mysterious private repo are "supported" on that machine or not? Seth?
Anyone with admin access to that box. If someone wants to install the RPM on that box and make sure it works they are welcome to do so.
This is contrary to what Dennis claims, and I won't upgrade system rpms without explicit permission, regardless of whether the packages are orphans or not.
I'm sorry but your local copy of yum 2.6 is not supported by the Fedora Infrastructure team.
That "team" has never before said anything about it. The API is needed as the backend for the Extras multilib resolver, Extras repoclosure, ... and some other tools. But maybe you misunderstand.
Perhaps I should drop the ball at this point and declare the code unsupported, too. As I said before, this is turning into a negative experience for me.
Ok clearly there's been some miscommunication because I have no idea what you're talking about.
That's the fundamental problem.
It's the missing interest that results in artificial policies and spontaneous decisions like this, which are beyond my comprehension.
Nobody cares what code is uploaded to and run on that machine to get something done. But when I ask on a otherwise quite silent public mailing-list about an official package update, it takes 12 days to get a first one-line reply, which demonstrates that the actual interest is low. After weeks, the hypocrisy increases and the reason for denial is altered. This is a hindrance and a disappointment. You have no interest, but you don't want to let loose either.
As such, I'm losing interesting as I don't feel good about this.
Mike McGrath wrote:
Michael Schwendt wrote:
On Tue, 27 Mar 2007 12:02:20 +0200, Michael Schwendt wrote:
On Mon, 26 Mar 2007 22:47:20 -0500, Mike McGrath wrote:
Michael Schwendt wrote:
On Thu, 15 Mar 2007 22:08:12 +0100, Michael Schwendt wrote:
$ rpm -q python-kid python-kid-0.9-2.centos4
on buildsys.fedoraproject.org would benefit from an update to 0.9.5 which includes xml related fixes and makes it possible to create pages that don't fail in the w3c validator.
$ rpm -q --whatrequires python-kid repoview-0.5.1-1.centos4
http://home.arcor.de/ms2002sep/tmp/el4-extras/noarch/python-kid-0.9.5-0.1.el...
Source rpms and build requirements here: http://home.arcor.de/ms2002sep/tmp/el4-extras/
I'm not sure I fully understand what problem this solves. Can you give me an example?
Sure. It's
versus
The former was created with unmodified software on buildsys.f.o, while the latter was created with my modified repoview including an updated python-kid.
So, what is the formal procedure for requesting a package update on the buildsys server like described above and getting an official and final reply?
Get someone upstream (RHEL) to accept the package changes. buildsys is going away in days anyway after koji goes live.
It's bad form to ignore one person and ask the same of others. We've said no. You didn't convince us. Sorry. You showed me that its creating mal-formed XML. It always has, no one has brought it up. I even gave you list of steps to do to get it updated. Exactly what issues is this causing you in your use of the buildsys?
-Mike
On Thu, 10 May 2007 09:19:05 -0500, Mike McGrath wrote:
Get someone upstream (RHEL) to accept the package changes. buildsys is going away in days anyway after koji goes live.
It's bad form to ignore one person and ask the same of others.
Are you kidding?
Who ignores you? Here is the reply to above quote. Sent on the same day as yours, just an hour later:
https://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-infrastructure-list/2007-April/msg000...
It is you who ignored that reply. Silence as a way to make me shut up?
We've said no. You didn't convince us. Sorry. You showed me that its creating mal-formed XML. It always has, no one has brought it up.
No one has cared about repoview and the way we use it since pre-Extras until I started looking into it. Then I noticed a few problems and fixed them. My modified repoview runs nicely for several weeks and passes the w3c validator, too. All that I ask for is a bit in return and hence suggested a minor update for a package. I don't see a team-decision. I see only you as a single person that doesn't care about the stuff I've done. No, thanks. I've had enough for today and won't prepare any further replies today.
infrastructure@lists.fedoraproject.org
-
Michael Schwendt -
Mike McGrath