4:59 p.m.
Hi!
Just fyi, I did some cleanups in bugzilla; if I did something wrong yell
and/or just reopen please.
Some things to note:
- There are a lot of packages awaiting review; see
https://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/showdependencytree.cgi?id=2&hide_resol...
for a list. I suppose those packagers that have packages in the review
queue try to get review exchanges organized; maybe via the wiki somehow?
- matthias seems to be the default owner for infrastructure bugs; Xavier
is doing most infr things these days, so that IMHO should be changed;
who has permissions to do that
- while at it: a lot of packages that are listed in owners.list are not
in the package list in bugzilla; how to we get that working?
Cu
knurd
12:33 p.m.
On Sat, 27 Sep 2008 18:59:14 +0200, Thorsten Leemhuis wrote:
- while at it: a lot of packages that are listed in owners.list are
not
in the package list in bugzilla; how to we get that working?
As a last resort we could improve something similar to what I've
used for Livna. It's an experimental script that automatically creates
bugzilla components for new packages found in the development repo.
Since no xmlrpc interface is available at livna afaik, I uses the web
CGI with authentication. One only had to update the assignee's email
addr manually, because often the email addresses in spec changelogs
differ from the people's bugzilla addresses. Much later, when
owners.list for livna appeared, I enhanced the script to evaluate
owners.list and also update existing bugzilla components automatically.
It was a solution to automate the stuff -- proof-of-concept. It's
not polished, and I stumbled into some oddities where I didn't take the
time to examine them in detail (such as bugzilla returning unescaped
characters which are confused with html entities).
1:55 p.m.
* Michael Schwendt [28/09/2008 15:31] :
As a last resort we could improve something similar to what I've
used for Livna. It's an experimental script that automatically creates
bugzilla components for new packages found in the development repo.
If it's in perl, I'll be glad to give a hand.
Emmanuel
2:35 p.m.
On Sun, Sep 28, 2008 at 3:55 PM, Emmanuel Seyman
<emmanuel.seyman(a)club-internet.fr> wrote:
* Michael Schwendt [28/09/2008 15:31] :
>
> As a last resort we could improve something similar to what I've
> used for Livna. It's an experimental script that automatically creates
> bugzilla components for new packages found in the development repo.
If it's in perl, I'll be glad to give a hand.
yeah, it's perl stuff.
I don't forgive you for that part.
Actually Thias is still the only one to have access to that box
(bz.rf.o) in order to let you guys help.
'ter
--
Xavier.t Lamien
--
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/XavierLamien
GPG-Key ID: F3903DEB
Fingerprint: 0F2A 7A17 0F1B 82EE FCBF 1F51 76B7 A28D F390 3DEB
2:48 p.m.
On Sun, 28 Sep 2008 16:35:51 +0200, Xavier Lamien wrote:
On Sun, Sep 28, 2008 at 3:55 PM, Emmanuel Seyman wrote:
> * Michael Schwendt [28/09/2008 15:31] :
>>
>> As a last resort we could improve something similar to what I've
>> used for Livna. It's an experimental script that automatically creates
>> bugzilla components for new packages found in the development repo.
>
> If it's in perl, I'll be glad to give a hand.
yeah, it's perl stuff.
I don't forgive you for that part.
Actually Thias is still the only one to have access to that box
(bz.rf.o) in order to let you guys help.
Well, the code I refer to is in Python, and it works remotely. For Livna,
several people have got the necessary privileges in bugzilla.
3:56 p.m.
On 28.09.2008 16:48, Michael Schwendt wrote:
On Sun, 28 Sep 2008 16:35:51 +0200, Xavier Lamien wrote:
> On Sun, Sep 28, 2008 at 3:55 PM, Emmanuel Seyman wrote:
>> * Michael Schwendt [28/09/2008 15:31] :
>>> As a last resort we could improve something similar to what I've
>>> used for Livna. It's an experimental script that automatically creates
>>> bugzilla components for new packages found in the development repo.
>> If it's in perl, I'll be glad to give a hand.
> yeah, it's perl stuff.
> I don't forgive you for that part.
> Actually Thias is still the only one to have access to that box
> (bz.rf.o) in order to let you guys help.
Well, the code I refer to is in Python, and it works remotely.
Hmm. We use old style owner.list (from the pre-pkdb days), so we should
be able to use the same script that Fedora used in the past. Or is that
a problem for some reason? is one of those script the old Fedora sync
script?
For Livna,
several people have got the necessary privileges in bugzilla.
That is afaics needed for RPM Fusion as well. And we really need to get
the list of packages into bugzilla, as we can't even officially announce
the "RPM Fusion testing phase" without a proper bug tracker.
Cu
knurd
4:36 p.m.
On Mon, 29 Sep 2008 17:56:04 +0200, Thorsten Leemhuis wrote:
> Well, the code I refer to is in Python, and it works remotely.
Hmm. We use old style owner.list (from the pre-pkdb days), so we should
be able to use the same script that Fedora used in the past. Or is that
a problem for some reason?
There's one that modifies bugzilla's database directly (locally).
It may still work, but it comes with increased requirements:
sufficient privileges to access the db, and the need to fork it
to replace any hardcoded constants that are specific to Fedora
and Red Hat's environment.
Anyway, as I've just added configurable POSIX locking to Plague cvs
and the pushscript (*ping* do you have news about the nfs problems
you've mentioned?), later this evening I might take a look at
rpmfusion's bugzilla website and see how much of my livna script
could be reused.
6:29 p.m.
On 29.09.2008 18:36, Michael Schwendt wrote:
On Mon, 29 Sep 2008 17:56:04 +0200, Thorsten Leemhuis wrote:
>> Well, the code I refer to is in Python, and it works remotely.
> Hmm. We use old style owner.list (from the pre-pkdb days), so we should
> be able to use the same script that Fedora used in the past. Or is that
> a problem for some reason?
There's one that modifies bugzilla's database directly (locally).
Ugh :-/
It may still work, but it comes with increased requirements:
sufficient privileges to access the db, and the need to fork it
to replace any hardcoded constants that are specific to Fedora
and Red Hat's environment.
:-((
Anyway, as I've just added configurable POSIX locking to Plague
cvs
and the pushscript (*ping* do you have news about the nfs problems
you've mentioned?),
Sorry, no; I didn't even talk to Xavier about it, as I would have to
translate what we discussed in private to English first -- that got a
lower priority in my quite long todo-list, as the push script works
"good enough" for me right now afaics. Would you be willing to contact
Xavier about it directly and discuss things? I don't understand much of
the details anyway, so I would just be a stupid man-in-the-middle.
later this evening I might take a look at
rpmfusion's bugzilla website and see how much of my livna script
could be reused.
Many thx!
Cu
knuird
6:48 p.m.
Status update here:
* Scripts seem to work just fine with rpmfusion after a bit of cut'n'paste
reorganisation (for easier testing). Used them to sync a change in livna's
bz. Cannot test creating/updating comps in rpmf bz because of lack of
write-access, of course. Official RPM Fusion "Product"s don't exist
in bz yet either.
* Found four owners.list files for four different fedora/epel rpmfusion
flavours. Need to cover this with a config file or options, as not
just the download location for those files is different, the bugzilla
product ids are different, too ("Fedora" vs. "Fedora EPEL").
* Bugzilla products for "free" and "nonfree" are the same.
Intentional?
* owners.epel.list.free is incomplete:
Reading repository metadata...
Packages in repos: 18
Packages in owners.list: 49
Missing owners.list entries:
[...]
Fedora EPEL|libtunepimp-extras-freeworld|Additional plugins for
libtunepimp|nobody(a)rpmfusion.org||
Fedora EPEL|libdca|DTS Coherent Acoustics decoder library|nobody(a)rpmfusion.org||
Fedora EPEL|akode-extras|Extra decoder plugins for akode|nobody(a)rpmfusion.org||
Fedora EPEL|lame|Free MP3 audio compressor|nobody(a)rpmfusion.org||
Fedora EPEL|xvidcore|Free reimplementation of the OpenDivX video
codec|nobody(a)rpmfusion.org||
Fedora EPEL|x264|H264/AVC video streams encoder|nobody(a)rpmfusion.org||
Fedora EPEL|faad2|Library and frontend for decoding MPEG2/4 AAC|nobody(a)rpmfusion.org||
Fedora EPEL|libmms|Library for Microsoft Media Server (MMS) streaming
protocol|nobody(a)rpmfusion.org||
Fedora EPEL|xine-lib-extras-freeworld|Non-free extra codecs for the Xine
library|nobody(a)rpmfusion.org||
Fedora EPEL|twolame|TwoLAME is an optimised MPEG Audio Layer 2 encoding library based on
tooLAME|nobody(a)rpmfusion.org||
5:55 a.m.
On 30.09.2008 20:48, Michael Schwendt wrote:
Status update here:
* Scripts seem to work just fine with rpmfusion after a bit of cut'n'paste
reorganisation (for easier testing). Used them to sync a change in livna's
bz. Cannot test creating/updating comps in rpmf bz because of lack of
write-access, of course. Official RPM Fusion "Product"s don't exist
in bz yet either.
Sounds good. So we yet agaoin need thias to move forward here afaics. :-/
* Found four owners.list files for four different fedora/epel
rpmfusion
flavours. Need to cover this with a config file or options, as not
just the download location for those files is different, the bugzilla
product ids are different, too ("Fedora" vs. "Fedora EPEL").
We can adjust them if needed. We iirc simply started with a owners.list
files from Fedora/EPEL and simply left that stuff untouched.
* Bugzilla products for "free" and "nonfree" are
the same. Intentional?
No. Seem really worth changing.
* owners.epel.list.free is incomplete:
[...]
On my todo-list.
CU
knurd
5:15 p.m.
On Wed, 01 Oct 2008 07:55:18 +0200, Thorsten Leemhuis wrote:
So we yet agaoin need thias to move forward here afaics. :-/
I've received a reply from him and have just added you to the Admin group
in bugzilla, so proper Products and their versions can be added.
In parallel I'm going to test adding/updating components with a private
group.
6:30 a.m.
Status update:
After a bit more coding to support the bugzilla version that's different
from livna's, I've been able to push the four owners.list files to it.
Products are:
Fedora (versions: 8, 9, development)
Fedora EPEL (versions: 5)
One hurdle I ran into is that this bugzilla does not offer a "Describe
Components" web page where it displays the people in Cc. That's a blocker
for remote-syncing of owners.list entries as done here. As one work-around
I will look at syncing the differences between the previous and the next
owners.list file.
If anyone wants to start looking at updating the bugzilla database
locally, it will be needed some day.
6:52 a.m.
Hi!
Sorry, I'm a bit behind with my mail, but I suppose I should answer this
one right now:
On 08.10.2008 08:30, Michael Schwendt wrote:
Status update:
After a bit more coding to support the bugzilla version that's different
from livna's, I've been able to push the four owners.list files to it.
Many many thanks for your help. Much appreciated.
Products are:
Fedora (versions: 8, 9, development)
Fedora EPEL (versions: 5)
We really need to discuss quickly if we want to stick to that scheme. E.g.
1) do we want to seperate free and nonfree in bugzilla?
2) is Fedora EPEL really a good name?
My answers:
1) unsure; most people likely don't care from which of the repos the
package comes from; other people OTOH will (and those might even yell at
us if we don't seperate)
2) don't think so; Maybe the the products should be called "RPM Fusion
for Fedora" and "RPM Fusion for EL" or something like that? With a spilt
in nonfree and free that would result it:
"RPM Fusion free for Fedora"
"RPM Fusion nonfree for Fedora"
"RPM Fusion free for EL"
"RPM Fusion nonfree for EL"
Other options?
[...]
CU
knurd
8:05 a.m.
On Wed, 08 Oct 2008 08:52:22 +0200, Thorsten Leemhuis wrote:
> Products are:
>
> Fedora (versions: 8, 9, development)
> Fedora EPEL (versions: 5)
We really need to discuss quickly if we want to stick to that scheme. E.g.
1) do we want to seperate free and nonfree in bugzilla?
Would make it possible to assign different owners. Else there's no
benefit.
2) is Fedora EPEL really a good name?
Products in bugzilla can be renamed.
My answers:
1) unsure; most people likely don't care from which of the repos the
package comes from; other people OTOH will (and those might even yell at
us if we don't seperate)
Do they even know? With too many products in bz to choose from they may
get lost in the lists of "components" and give up trying to find a
package name.
Other issues:
* There are entries in owners.list with no bz account.
EPEL: faad2, lame, libdca, twolame, x264, xv, xvidcore
Fedora:
mupen64-ricevideo
sidplay-libs
amarok-extras-freeworld
amule
audacious-plugins-freeworld
compat-plone
compat-python24
compat-python24-elementtree
compat-python24-feedparser
compat-python24-imaging
compat-python24-libxml2
compat-python24-lxml
compat-python24-setuptools
compat-zope
faad2
ffmpeg
iscsitarget
iscsitarget-kmod
KmPg2
lame
libdca
live555
mamory
mp3gain
mpd
mpg321
mplayer
mupen64
qc-usb
qc-usb-kmod
rt2860
rt2860-kmod
twolame
vagalume
x264
xine-lib-extras-freeworld
xvidcore
xv
* There are entries which differ between "free" and "nonfree".
EPEL: libmad
* There is an entry with an "initialqacontact" which is a field
disabled in this bz. Use "initialcc" instead.
EPEL: libmpeg2
* Avoid the '&' character in package summaries in owners.list because
bz doesn't replace it with a html entity. This breaks parsing of bz
pages.
8:26 a.m.
On 08.10.2008 10:05, Michael Schwendt wrote:
On Wed, 08 Oct 2008 08:52:22 +0200, Thorsten Leemhuis wrote:
>> Products are:
>>
>> Fedora (versions: 8, 9, development)
>> Fedora EPEL (versions: 5)
> We really need to discuss quickly if we want to stick to that scheme. E.g.
>
> 1) do we want to seperate free and nonfree in bugzilla?
Would make it possible to assign different owners. [...]
If there are packages with the same name in both free and nonfree. But
that should never happen, so this isn't a benefit in practice.
> 2) is Fedora EPEL really a good name?
Products in bugzilla can be renamed.
Just wanted to make sure that renaming it later doesn't create to much
trouble for your script.
> My answers:
> 1) unsure; most people likely don't care from which of the repos the
> package comes from; other people OTOH will (and those might even yell at
> us if we don't seperate)
Do they even know?
Unlikely.
With too many products in bz to choose from they may
get lost in the lists of "components" and give up trying to find a
package name.
Agreed. So splitting in free and nonfree likely doesn't make much sense.
Other issues:
* There are entries in owners.list with no bz account.
[long list striped]
Uhhps. Someone should mail the package owners and ask them kindly to
create an account. Any volunteer that want to do this job? Codename is:
"herding the cats!"
* There are entries which differ between "free" and
"nonfree".
EPEL: libmad
libmad was two times in owners.epel.list for free; fixed
* There is an entry with an "initialqacontact" which is a
field
disabled in this bz. Use "initialcc" instead.
EPEL: libmpeg2
You mean this?
free/owners/owners.list:Fedora|libmpeg2|MPEG-2 decoder libraries \
|kwizart@gmail.com|david(a)juran.se|
Fixed.
* Avoid the '&' character in package summaries in
owners.list because
bz doesn't replace it with a html entity. This breaks parsing of bz
pages.
Fixed.
CU
knurd
6:40 p.m.
On 08.10.2008 10:26, Thorsten Leemhuis wrote:
On 08.10.2008 10:05, Michael Schwendt wrote:
> On Wed, 08 Oct 2008 08:52:22 +0200, Thorsten Leemhuis wrote:
> [...]
> Other issues:
> * There are entries in owners.list with no bz account.
> [long list striped]
Uhhps. Someone should mail the package owners and ask them kindly to
create an account. Any volunteer that want to do this job? Codename is:
"herding the cats!"
Not all at once!
So I suppose this means another job found its way on my todo list
somehow. I checked the bugzilla admin interface and it seems I'm able to
create users there. Should I just do that based on the informations from
FAS and owners.list?
Cu
knurd
7:29 p.m.
On Sun, 12 Oct 2008 20:40:53 +0200, Thorsten Leemhuis wrote:
On 08.10.2008 10:26, Thorsten Leemhuis wrote:
> On 08.10.2008 10:05, Michael Schwendt wrote:
>> On Wed, 08 Oct 2008 08:52:22 +0200, Thorsten Leemhuis wrote:
>> [...]
>> Other issues:
>> * There are entries in owners.list with no bz account.
>> [long list striped]
> Uhhps. Someone should mail the package owners and ask them kindly to
> create an account. Any volunteer that want to do this job? Codename is:
> "herding the cats!"
Not all at once!
So I suppose this means another job found its way on my todo list
somehow. I checked the bugzilla admin interface and it seems I'm able to
create users there. Should I just do that based on the informations from
FAS and owners.list?
I recommend you ask the users to create accounts themselves
and at the same time confirm that they still want to maintain
the packages.
7:52 p.m.
On 12.10.2008 21:29, Michael Schwendt wrote:
On Sun, 12 Oct 2008 20:40:53 +0200, Thorsten Leemhuis wrote:
> On 08.10.2008 10:26, Thorsten Leemhuis wrote:
>> On 08.10.2008 10:05, Michael Schwendt wrote:
>>> On Wed, 08 Oct 2008 08:52:22 +0200, Thorsten Leemhuis wrote:
>>> [...]
>>> Other issues:
>>> * There are entries in owners.list with no bz account.
>>> [long list striped]
>> Uhhps. Someone should mail the package owners and ask them kindly to
>> create an account. Any volunteer that want to do this job? Codename is:
>> "herding the cats!"
> Not all at once!
>
> So I suppose this means another job found its way on my todo list
> somehow. I checked the bugzilla admin interface and it seems I'm able to
> create users there. Should I just do that based on the informations from
> FAS and owners.list?
I recommend you ask the users to create accounts themselves
and at the same time confirm that they still want to maintain
the packages.
I of course would only create accounts for users that signed up in FAS
over the past few weeks -- for those users we already know that they are
still around and want to maintain their packages in RPM Fusion.
I'd say that should be more then enough. Especially as it seems nobody
is willing to mail everyone (which of course would be better; but that's
even more work then simply creating those bugzilla accounts...). Or is
there someone?
CU
knurd
8:16 a.m.
On Sun, 12 Oct 2008 21:52:17 +0200, Thorsten Leemhuis wrote:
I of course would only create accounts for users that signed up in
FAS
over the past few weeks -- for those users we already know that they are
still around and want to maintain their packages in RPM Fusion.
That sounds plausible.
7:01 p.m.
On Wednesday, 08 October 2008 at 10:05, Michael Schwendt wrote:
[...]
Other issues:
* There are entries in owners.list with no bz account.
EPEL: faad2, lame, libdca, twolame, x264, xv, xvidcore
Huh? They're maintained by me and I do have a bz account. It's using another
e-mail address though. I don't see any option to change the address in Bugzilla.
Regards,
R.
--
Fedora http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/User:Rathann
RPMFusion http://rpmfusion.org | MPlayer http://mplayerhq.hu
"Faith manages."
-- Delenn to Lennier in Babylon 5:"Confessions and Lamentations"
7:26 p.m.
On Thu, 9 Oct 2008 21:01:12 +0200, Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski wrote:
On Wednesday, 08 October 2008 at 10:05, Michael Schwendt wrote:
[...]
> Other issues:
>
> * There are entries in owners.list with no bz account.
> EPEL: faad2, lame, libdca, twolame, x264, xv, xvidcore
Huh? They're maintained by me and I do have a bz account. It's using another
e-mail address though. I don't see any option to change the address in Bugzilla.
allowemailchange defaults to "Off". I've turnt it on.
You should be able to see it in "Preferences > Name and Password"
in case you want to change your addr. Else update all owners.list
as necessary.
Addresses in owners.list must match existing bugzilla accounts.
11:08 p.m.
On Thursday, 09 October 2008 at 21:26, Michael Schwendt wrote:
On Thu, 9 Oct 2008 21:01:12 +0200, Dominik 'Rathann'
Mierzejewski wrote:
> On Wednesday, 08 October 2008 at 10:05, Michael Schwendt wrote:
> [...]
> > Other issues:
> >
> > * There are entries in owners.list with no bz account.
> > EPEL: faad2, lame, libdca, twolame, x264, xv, xvidcore
>
> Huh? They're maintained by me and I do have a bz account. It's using
another
> e-mail address though. I don't see any option to change the address in
Bugzilla.
>
allowemailchange defaults to "Off". I've turnt it on.
You should be able to see it in "Preferences > Name and Password"
in case you want to change your addr. Else update all owners.list
as necessary.
Addresses in owners.list must match existing bugzilla accounts.
Changed in bugzilla, thanks.
Regards,
R.
--
Fedora http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/User:Rathann
RPMFusion http://rpmfusion.org | MPlayer http://mplayerhq.hu
"Faith manages."
-- Delenn to Lennier in Babylon 5:"Confessions and Lamentations"
5:49 p.m.
On 08.10.2008 10:05, Michael Schwendt wrote:
On Wed, 08 Oct 2008 08:52:22 +0200, Thorsten Leemhuis wrote:
[...]
Other issues:
* There are entries in owners.list with no bz account.
[...]
This list should be a lot shorter now:
mupen64-ricevideo
KmPg2
orphaned
audacious-plugins-freeworld
waiting for ralf/fixed cla
rt2860
rt2860-kmod
Needs to be discussed who actually will take care of this package. Maybe
oget, james and I;
xv
Send Gabriel a reminder mail.
[...]
Cu
knurd
9:12 p.m.
On Mon, 13 Oct 2008 19:49:13 +0200, Thorsten Leemhuis wrote:
> * There are entries in owners.list with no bz account.
> [...]
This list should be a lot shorter now:
fedora, free:
* entry for libmms is duplicate
* for the following entries the email addr doesn't match with bugzilla:
audacious-plugins-freeworld not in bugzilla!
compat-plone not in bugzilla!
compat-python24 not in bugzilla!
compat-python24-elementtree not in bugzilla!
compat-python24-feedparser not in bugzilla!
compat-python24-imaging not in bugzilla!
compat-python24-libxml2 not in bugzilla!
compat-python24-lxml not in bugzilla!
compat-python24-setuptools not in bugzilla!
compat-zope not in bugzilla!
mp3gain not in bugzilla!
rt2860 not in bugzilla!
rt2860-kmod not in bugzilla!
fedora, non-free:
* fine
epel, free:
* fine
epel, non-free:
* fine
4:35 p.m.
On 14.10.2008 23:12, Michael Schwendt wrote:
On Mon, 13 Oct 2008 19:49:13 +0200, Thorsten Leemhuis wrote:
>> * There are entries in owners.list with no bz account.
> > [...]
> This list should be a lot shorter now:
fedora, free:
thx for the update.
* entry for libmms is duplicate
Removed.
* for the following entries the email addr doesn't match with
bugzilla:
audacious-plugins-freeworld not in bugzilla!
I put myself in as owner for now.
compat-plone not in bugzilla!
compat-python24 not in bugzilla!
compat-python24-elementtree not in bugzilla!
compat-python24-feedparser not in bugzilla!
compat-python24-imaging not in bugzilla!
compat-python24-libxml2 not in bugzilla!
compat-python24-lxml not in bugzilla!
compat-python24-setuptools not in bugzilla!
compat-zope not in bugzilla!
Changed email in owners.list to match the one in FAS/bugzilla
mp3gain not in bugzilla!
I just put myself in as owner, a bpepple didn't want to take care of it
anymore iirc. But I have no interest in the package at all; anybody else
(David?)? Then please speak up!
rt2860 not in bugzilla!
rt2860-kmod not in bugzilla!
I put myself in as owner for now and oget (who seems interested in it)
as co-maintainer.
Cu
knurd
8:47 p.m.
So, everyone (but merely the infrastructure dudes), here's another
status update WITH source code.
Please don't run this without filling in your bugzilla credentials!
(and if you did, "rm -f pickle*" prior to next run)
Attached is the set of scripts to sync owners.list files to bugzilla
(remotely, i.e. via the normal web interface). Since the last status
updates, the script has been run twice a day as a cronjob.
1. extract the tarball in a working-directory
2. open "rpmfusion.conf"
3. enter your bugzilla account email and password in the [bugzilla]
section
That account MUST have "editcomponents" permission (a special account
with just that permission could be created).
4. execute "RUN.sh" once
During the first run it will create the missing files ("pickle*") in
current dir and take longer than normal for every owners.list entry
that has people in "initialcclist". As why, see bottom paragraph in
this mail.
Notice the warning on stderr about duplicate entries in some of
the owners.list files. ;) This is stuff that must be fixed in
those files.
5. execute "RUN.sh" again
This time you should not see as many update status messages as
previously (as it could use the pickle files).
(5.2 try once more with a modified owners.list in svn)
6. enable option "-q" (quiet) in RUN.sh to kill normal stdout messages
as appropriate for cron jobs
[...]
Why more than one script?
Python modules for reusability. Even the modules can be run as scripts
(use -h or --help) for testing, btw.
There's the old "CheckOwnersList" script that can compare repository
contents with an owners.list file and print missing entries (where only
the email addresses must be substituted!). E.g. for RPM Fusion Fedora free
devel:
$ python CheckOwnersList -c rpmfusion.conf -p free-rawhide
Reading repository metadata...
free-rawhide - Packages in repos: 144
Packages in owners.list: 155
Nothing missing, so no further output.
[...]
Compared with Livna, a couple of changes have been necessary to make
the scripts work with RPM Fusion:
- the bugzilla version uses special tokens to combat fraud -- this
required ugly enhancements in the scripts
- the well-known "describecomponents.cgi" web page doesn't list
the members of the Cc list but only name, description, owner -- due
to that it's not possible to simply compare bz's list of
"components"
with owners.list since they don't cover the same details. The missing
details are filled in from a local cache (Python pickle files maintained
during each run).
- the "default QA contact" field is not used and unavailable compared
with Livna - that required a flag in the web page parser
[...]
And finally, although this [still] works, another solution would be to
look into modifying the bugzilla database tables directly and deal with
the different requirements (srv/db access and such). Fedora's scripts
probably would not be compatible because Red Hat's bugzilla is different
(just a guess).
9:09 p.m.
On Mon, 10 Nov 2008 21:47:00 +0100, Michael Schwendt wrote:
So, everyone (but merely the infrastructure dudes), here's
another
status update WITH source code.
*ping*
Moving forward here would be appreciated.
At least, please fix the owners list, so the cron job will be
quiet again:
free-rawhide - Duplicate entry: gstreamer-ffmpeg
free-rawhide - Duplicate entry: gstreamer-plugins-ugly
10:34 a.m.
On 29.11.2008 22:09, Michael Schwendt wrote:
On Mon, 10 Nov 2008 21:47:00 +0100, Michael Schwendt wrote:
> So, everyone (but merely the infrastructure dudes), here's another
> status update WITH source code.
*ping*
Moving forward here would be appreciated.
Xavier?
At least, please fix the owners list, so the cron job will be
quiet again:
> free-rawhide - Duplicate entry: gstreamer-ffmpeg
> free-rawhide - Duplicate entry: gstreamer-plugins-ugly
Sorry, I thought I did that already. Seems I didn't. Fixed now.
CU
knurd
11:27 p.m.
On Sun, 30 Nov 2008 11:34:12 +0100, Thorsten wrote:
On 29.11.2008 22:09, Michael Schwendt wrote:
> On Mon, 10 Nov 2008 21:47:00 +0100, Michael Schwendt wrote:
>
>> So, everyone (but merely the infrastructure dudes), here's another
>> status update WITH source code.
>
> *ping*
>
> Moving forward here would be appreciated.
Xavier?
> At least, please fix the owners list, so the cron job will be
> quiet again:
>
>> free-rawhide - Duplicate entry: gstreamer-ffmpeg
>> free-rawhide - Duplicate entry: gstreamer-plugins-ugly
Sorry, I thought I did that already. Seems I didn't. Fixed now.
Thanks!
5:30 p.m.
On Tuesday, 30 September 2008 at 20:48, Michael Schwendt wrote:
[...]
Reading repository metadata...
Packages in repos: 18
Packages in owners.list: 49
Missing owners.list entries:
[...]
Fedora EPEL|libdca|DTS Coherent Acoustics decoder library|nobody(a)rpmfusion.org||
Fedora EPEL|lame|Free MP3 audio compressor|nobody(a)rpmfusion.org||
Fedora EPEL|xvidcore|Free reimplementation of the OpenDivX video
codec|nobody(a)rpmfusion.org||
Fedora EPEL|x264|H264/AVC video streams encoder|nobody(a)rpmfusion.org||
Fedora EPEL|faad2|Library and frontend for decoding MPEG2/4 AAC|nobody(a)rpmfusion.org||
Fedora EPEL|twolame|TwoLAME is an optimised MPEG Audio Layer 2 encoding library based on
tooLAME|nobody(a)rpmfusion.org||
I'll maintain these for EPEL as well.
Regards,
R.
--
Fedora http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/User:Rathann
RPMFusion http://rpmfusion.org | MPlayer http://mplayerhq.hu
"Faith manages."
-- Delenn to Lennier in Babylon 5:"Confessions and Lamentations"
5622
days inactive
5688
days old
rpmfusion-developers@lists.rpmfusion.org
29 comments
5 participants
participants (5)
-
Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski -
Emmanuel Seyman -
Michael Schwendt -
Thorsten Leemhuis -
Xavier Lamien