> Hi Matthias,
> On Thu, Apr 04, 2019 at 02:07:50PM +0200, Matthias Klose wrote:
>> On 04.04.19 01:52, Steve Langasek wrote:
>>> Thanks, Robie, for kicking off this discussion.
>>> In regards to rails in particular, I would like to note that the same
>>> version of the rails package is present in the bionic, cosmic, and disco
>>> releases. Despite several uploads and syncs/merges from Debian, no new
>>> version of the rails package that has landed in devel-proposed has been
>>> releasable to devel since 7 April 2018
>>> Autopkgtest results show that we do not have a coherent set of rails-related
>>> packages in devel-proposed that are releasable. And despite the best
>>> efforts of Ubuntu developers working on proposed-migration over the past
>>> year, we have not succeeded in untangling this, in part because there is a
>>> lack of expertise in this stack among those working on it.
>>> I think it's clear that this is a case where Ubuntu is not providing value
>>> to our users by syncing the subset of modules that Debian have packaged,
>>> particularly since - as you point out - we know that upstream is going to
>>> recommend installing from the upstream language-specific repository (gems).
>>> There's also no correlation between what version of these components was
>>> current at the time of an Ubuntu release and what version is interesting for
>>> deployment of real services over time.
>> This is short-sighted, and greatly influenced by the voices of
>> language-specific upstream communities. As seen at several occasions at
>> PyCon: Ask an upstream community, which Linux distribution they use
>> (majority of hands go up for Ubuntu), and then how many of those use the
>> system Python (majority of hands go down). Please ask this Python
>> question to an upstream Java, upstream Ruby community, and I assume that
>> nobody cares and uses the Python as distributed by Ubuntu. Ask the Java
>> and Python communities the same question about Ruby, and these are
>> probably happy with the Ruby found on Ubuntu. Now remove the Ruby, Python
>> and Java stacks, and probably nobody will be happy anymore.
> I don't think it's anyone's intent to remove the language runtimes and
> bindings as a whole. We're looking at rails in particular as a subset of
> the packages in the archive which depend on ruby because:
> - rails is a web framework, and we know historically that debs aren't a
> good fit for delivering web apps to systems
> - updates to the stack have been unreleasable for a year without either
> removing packages or shipping known broken packages, which requires a
> disproportionate amount of effort to resolve
> - ruby as a whole is a pain point for Ubuntu because no one from the
> upstream community is engaged with its maintenance as an Ubuntu developer
> My goal is not to remove rails (or any other specific package) per se. My
> goal is to have a better process by which we can come to a decision that a
> related group of packages is not well-maintained and should be removed.
> Currently, the Archive Team and the Release Team have the authority to
> decide that a package should be removed from the release; but the actual
> process followed involves filing of bug reports against individual packages
> and per-package soul-searching on the part of an archive admin.
> Do you disagree that we should remove rails from the archive, given its
> current condition? Or are you concerned that the rationale is wrong and
> sets a bad precedent?
Yes, it sets a bad precedent. Writing above "ruby as a whole is a pain point"
doesn't make me confident that you will stop with the rails removal.
Compare that with the nodejs and java stack maintenance before the archive
reorganization. Nobody wanted to support nodejs and the java stack in main, but
nobody proposed to remove all of these packages.
> Do you think that we should categorically remove all reverse-dependencies of
> rails which have autopkgtests showing that they are broken with the new
> version of rails, allowing the new version in?
Yes, if we are not removing the majority of rdeps.
>>> So I agree with the general principle that we should be willing to remove
>>> such language-specific stacks from the archive if they are not being
>>> maintained (which, with my AA hat on, means: remove from devel and
>>> devel-proposed and add to the sync blacklist).
>>> I also agree for the specific case of rails that it should be removed from
>>> Ubuntu releases going forward, unless something changes; and I believe that
>>> we should put this into effect immediately for the Ubuntu 19.04 release,
>>> despite the nearness of the release date.
>>> Provided that there are no objections here, I will plan to start removing
>>> this stack from disco and disco-proposed on Friday, April 5.
>> I disagree with this approach. There are at least two packages with
>> failing autopkg tests which were removed in Debian. So why are those not
>> removed in Ubuntu as well? I think we should fix our ubuntu-archive tasks
>> first, and see what kind of actions we are missing, and only then decide
>> if those packages should be removed or not.
>> With your AA hat on, why are those removals not handled before proposing
>> the removal of every dependency?
> I think it would've been material to this discussion for you to mention
> which specific packages here you see that should be removed.
Sure, but this analysis should already have been part of the starting email of
> I as an AA do regularly run process-removals and try to chase down the
> various loose ends that prevent us from removing from Ubuntu various
> packages that have been removed from Debian.
> It's a lot of work.
Who else is doing that on a regular basis? Hint: I have never done this myself,
only doing removals when investigating blocked transitions.
> I think that's also ignoring the fact that rails has been unreleasable for a
> year, while - if I've correctly identified the packages you're referring to
> - the Debian removals happened a month ago. So this is a single
> point-in-time view that obscures the fact that the amount of effort the
> Ubuntu community is currently able to put into the archive is not sufficient
> to make this package releasable over the course of a year up to that point;
> AND it wrongly implies that if only the archive admins processed removals
> more regularly, that there would not be a maintenance cost to having this
> stack in the archive.
> That's simply not true. It ignores the fact that there is another
> reverse-dependency of rails that has not been removed from Debian unstable
> and also has a regressing autopkgtest. It ignores the fact that rails
> itself in devel-proposed is also blocked by a dependency on another package
> stuck in -proposed which also has regressing autopkgtests. It ignores the
> aggregate effort over the last year that Ubuntu developers have put into
> repeatedly fix the release blockers, only to fall short.
May I cite you: "I think it would've been material to this discussion for you to
mention which specific packages here you see"
> The premise here is: it takes more work than anyone is willing to put into
> it to keep the rails stack in the Ubuntu archive in a healthy state. So
> counterproposals that identify additional work you think we should be
> willing to do really don't address the problem. Juggling your own
> priorities, in response to this thread, in order to make time to "prove"
> that the additional amount of effort required to maintain rails is trivial,
> doesn't really address the problem.
You are ignoring the fact that the removal of a set of packages still takes
ongoing maintenance resources. Seen before the archive reorganization to keep
the nodejs and java stacks out of main.
> We are where we are having this conversation because the facts on the ground
> show that rails and related packages are not being effectively maintained,
> given available resources. Assuming that the available resources are fixed,
> what do you think we should do here to make Ubuntu releases as high quality
> and as useful to our users as possible?
Talking about "our users" is the same shotgun approach that is currently applied
to autopkg tests. Different users have different needs, and the quality
provided in the archive might be sufficient for Joe User. Apparently we don't
have the resources to analyse each autopkg test failure, so accepting packages
for the release without having this analysis should be an option. Your
conclusion seems to be that removal of such packages is the answer, where I
disagree. I think that compromising on the quality for such packages would be
the better thing to do, and documenting these compromises being made, maybe even
in the release notes.
Again, I am not a rails user, but you seem to make this a precedent for further
ubuntu-devel mailing list
Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel