CentOS - Jan 2015 - Design changes are done in Fedora

On Tue, Jan 6, 2015 at 7:52 PM, Warren Young <wyml at etr-usa.com>
wrote:
> On Jan 6, 2015, at 6:49 PM, John R. Dennison <jrd at gerdesas.com>
wrote:
>
>> On Tue, Jan 06, 2015 at 06:37:42PM -0700, Warren Young wrote:
>>
>> Noise removed.
>>
>> Quick question, if I may?  What does this have to do with CentOS?
>
> Some people are annoyed that CentOS keeps changing on them, and keep going
to greater and greater lengths to try and argue that CentOS should not change.
No one has said it should not change.  Just that it breaks all users
existing work when it changes in non-backwards compatible ways.
> I am explaining to them why this is not a productive view.
The non-productive part is that every user who has ever built anything
of non-stable components has to deal with the problem on an individual
basis.   Is there any centralized approach to converting something
that worked on CentOS6 to run on CentOS7?   Does the program that is
supposed to try to automatically upgrade versions have any tricks
hidden away to fix things so they work after the upgrade, and could
any of them be run separately?

-- 
   Les Mikesell
     lesmikesell at gmail.com

On Tue, 2015-01-06 at 20:19 -0600, Les Mikesell wrote:
> Is there any centralized approach to converting something
> that worked on CentOS6 to run on CentOS7?   Does the program that is
> supposed to try to automatically upgrade versions have any tricks
> hidden away to fix things so they work after the upgrade, and could
> any of them be run separately?
Brilliant task to assign to Warren Young. That will keep him away from
his disruptive "improvements" philosophy.

-- 
Regards,

Paul.
England, EU.

On Jan 6, 2015, at 7:40 PM, Always Learning <centos at u62.u22.net> wrote:
> On Tue, 2015-01-06 at 20:19 -0600, Les Mikesell wrote:
> 
>> Is there any centralized approach to converting something
>> that worked on CentOS6 to run on CentOS7?
> 
> Brilliant task to assign to Warren Young.
You?re awfully free with the disposition of my time.  Why is it that you feel
you have a claim on it?

In any case, I thought it was you and Les who were annoyed about the current
state of things, not me.  It?s your itch.  Why are you demanding that someone
else scratch it for you, for free?
> That will keep him away from
> his disruptive "improvements" philosophy.
I only have one package in the CentOS package repo, MySQL++.  Here is its
documentation detailing the incompatible changes made over the decade I?ve been
maintaining it:

  http://tangentsoft.net/mysql++/doc/html/userman/breakages.html

Some questions:

0. Which one of these ?disruptive improvements" broke something for you?

1. You wanted documentation detailing changes made and ways to move forward. 
Since this is the only piece of CentOS that I control ? and that only loosely,
since the RPMs are maintained by someone else ? what more did you want from this
document?

2. Are you aware of a MySQL++ breakage that isn?t documented here?

3. How many of those breakages do you view as capricious?

4. How many of the changes were done in a backward-incompatible way, not
counting those done at major version transitions?

Yes, I?m aware that the answer to #4 is not ?zero,? to my chagrin.  Some of
those regressions were reverted shortly after the breakage was noticed by
someone, while others were allowed to slide, as they didn?t seem to affect any
existing code, based on mailing list traffic.

We now run an ABI compatibility checker as part of the release process, to
prevent this from happening again.

Does any of this match up with your preconception of me as a developer?  I?m
pretty sure you slagged off on me without knowing about any of this.