4 ms·

The author seems to be complaining that instead of every distro having their own copy of specfiles, the specfiles are semi-shared and use conditional logic to i

The author seems to be complaining that instead of every distro having their own copy of specfiles, the specfiles are semi-shared and use conditional logic to include or exclude components depending on which distribution the package is being built for. In this particular case a feature should have been disabled on Fedora, but was enabled unconditionally, which caused problems on Fedora. They seem to be further complaining that when this bug was fixed [0], a condition was added for "fedora" rather than "rhel", meaning that any Fedora derivatives might trip over this issue (because they wouldn't trigger the condition). But they never made this complaint in the actual Bugzilla [0] where someone could consider their feedback, they skipped straight to the "complain via blog post" phase. Just like they did in their first blog post [1] where they said >I would file a bug report but I cannot imagine that Fedora would accept it. They already know that this feature doesn't work; it's right there in the DKMS manpage. It's there anyway because, well, I don't know. This is the most user-hostile decision I think I've ever seen Fedora make. Nevertheless it seems they did file the bug report, and it was accepted, and fixed in less than a week. My advice to the author is that perhaps they should extend a little more charity and "just ask" first, before they jump at the opportunity to complain in public - without having mentioned the issue to anyone with the ability to fix it. [0] https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1962841 https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1962841 [1] https://utcc.utoronto.ca/~cks/space/blog/linux/FedoraWeakUpdatesFailure https://utcc.utoronto.ca/~cks/space/blog/linux/FedoraWeakUpd...

kjs3 5y ago
Welcome to the social media era. You don't get clicks/likes/upvotes by going through the process to engage with people, you get them by running to social media and making mountains out of molehills, for the lulz. Remember, it's not about community, or helping out, or just doing the right thing, it's about your "influencer" clout.
3v1n0 5y ago
Also debian uses conditional rules on some packages whether something is for debian, ubuntu or a derivative
- DiabloD3 5y ago
  This is only in cases where the packages are maintained by a joint Debian/Ubuntu team, so everyone is already on board to make sure this works. Redhat, otoh, fosters a culture that does not care about Fedora.
  - dralley 5y ago
    > Redhat, otoh, fosters a culture that does not care about Fedora. disclaimer: I do work for Red Hat, my opinions are my own. Why do you feel that way?
- dralley 5y ago
  Good point, I see someone posted an example downthread https://salsa.debian.org/search?search=Ubuntu&group_id=4586&project_id=31247 https://salsa.debian.org/search?search=Ubuntu&group_id=4586&...
gnufx 5y ago
For what it's worth, some Fedora maintainers maintain that maintainers generally should use branches and not spec conditionals. Other maintainers ignore them. That's a branch for every Fedora and EL release (assuming you maintain for EPEL) and pending releases; I'd rather not. I see nothing wrong with that conditional. It's a toss up which way you write such things, sometimes trying to second-guess future EL versions. I'd expect any Fedora derivative to define %fedora, the way RHEL derivatives define %rhel as well as, say, %centos. Good advice to the author. Apart from anything else, bug reports can be useful to fellow users, even if maintainers don't make the requested change -- or perhaps don't until enough ire from other users accumulates under the report.

kjs3 5y ago

Welcome to the social media era. You don't get clicks/likes/upvotes by going through the process to engage with people, you get them by running to social media and making mountains out of molehills, for the lulz. Remember, it's not about community, or helping out, or just doing the right thing, it's about your "influencer" clout.

3v1n0 5y ago

Also debian uses conditional rules on some packages whether something is for debian, ubuntu or a derivative

DiabloD3 5y ago
This is only in cases where the packages are maintained by a joint Debian/Ubuntu team, so everyone is already on board to make sure this works. Redhat, otoh, fosters a culture that does not care about Fedora.
- dralley 5y ago
  > Redhat, otoh, fosters a culture that does not care about Fedora. disclaimer: I do work for Red Hat, my opinions are my own. Why do you feel that way?
dralley 5y ago
Good point, I see someone posted an example downthread https://salsa.debian.org/search?search=Ubuntu&group_id=4586&project_id=31247 https://salsa.debian.org/search?search=Ubuntu&group_id=4586&...

gnufx 5y ago

For what it's worth, some Fedora maintainers maintain that maintainers generally should use branches and not spec conditionals. Other maintainers ignore them. That's a branch for every Fedora and EL release (assuming you maintain for EPEL) and pending releases; I'd rather not. I see nothing wrong with that conditional. It's a toss up which way you write such things, sometimes trying to second-guess future EL versions. I'd expect any Fedora derivative to define %fedora, the way RHEL derivatives define %rhel as well as, say, %centos. Good advice to the author. Apart from anything else, bug reports can be useful to fellow users, even if maintainers don't make the requested change -- or perhaps don't until enough ire from other users accumulates under the report.