| Summary: | Reconsider thunderbird-lightning addon in our repositories | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Product: | [Fedora] Fedora | Reporter: | Jan Horak <jhorak> |
| Component: | thunderbird-lightning | Assignee: | Orion Poplawski <orion> |
| Status: | CLOSED WONTFIX | QA Contact: | Fedora Extras Quality Assurance <extras-qa> |
| Severity: | unspecified | Docs Contact: | |
| Priority: | unspecified | ||
| Version: | 15 | CC: | bruno, caillon, mcepl, mcepl, mike, mrunge, orion, philipp, robatino, stransky |
| Target Milestone: | --- | ||
| Target Release: | --- | ||
| Hardware: | Unspecified | ||
| OS: | Unspecified | ||
| Whiteboard: | |||
| Fixed In Version: | Doc Type: | Bug Fix | |
| Doc Text: | Story Points: | --- | |
| Clone Of: | Environment: | ||
| Last Closed: | 2011-11-22 23:19:23 UTC | Type: | --- |
| Regression: | --- | Mount Type: | --- |
| Documentation: | --- | CRM: | |
| Verified Versions: | Category: | --- | |
| oVirt Team: | --- | RHEL 7.3 requirements from Atomic Host: | |
| Cloudforms Team: | --- | Target Upstream Version: | |
|
Description
Jan Horak
2011-08-18 06:33:59 UTC
It seems, upstream can't meet the faster update cylce of thunderbird main-releases. This seems to be a more general mozilla (firefox, thinderbird,...) problem. Are you in contact with upstream? What are they saying? If I was asked, I'd prefer the second mentioned solution. The official 1.0b5 release (not nightly) on a.m.o works with TB 6.0. Something is amiss. Seems that there are other reports of it. Looks like the 1.0b5rc3 tarball is based of the comm-miramar sources (TB5). So yeah, looks like we'd need a released based off of TB6. I really don't know what the best way forward long term. For the F15 update I'm going to build from the TB6 sources. How about adding this to the lightning spec: Requires: thunderbird = 6.0 AutoQA would fail when thunderbird 7 gets pushed. Right? Of course, AutoQA is not enforcing yet, I believe, so this is pointless, but it would prevent people from updating to a thunderbird that breaks lightning. Does anyone know where the l10n release repo for TB6 is? I was using: http://hg.mozilla.org/releases/l10n-miramar for TB5, but not having luck with l10n-aurora or anything else. (In reply to comment #5) > How about adding this to the lightning spec: > > Requires: thunderbird = 6.0 What's the expectation these days for TB version numbers? Will there ever be a 6.1 that is compatible with 6.0? (In reply to comment #7) > What's the expectation these days for TB version numbers? Will there ever be a > 6.1 that is compatible with 6.0? I cannot find the documentation, but it is my understanding that there are no more #.x releases. Security updates are #.0.x. The next major version of TB will be 7.0, then 8.0, etc. You could have the Requires be < 7.0 and you should be safe. https://wiki.mozilla.org/RapidRelease Great, I built lightning out of the TB6 sources but now it says that it is incompatible with TB6. I've built thunderbird-lightning-1.0-0.48.b5.fc15 and it appears to work for me. Jan, do you want to add it to the tb update or shall I make a separate one? (In reply to comment #10) > I've built thunderbird-lightning-1.0-0.48.b5.fc15 and it appears to work for > me. Jan, do you want to add it to the tb update or shall I make a separate > one? I've added your build to thunderbird update. Thanks a lot! (In reply to comment #5) > How about adding this to the lightning spec: > > Requires: thunderbird = 6.0 > > AutoQA would fail when thunderbird 7 gets pushed. Right? Of course, AutoQA is > not enforcing yet, I believe, so this is pointless, but it would prevent people > from updating to a thunderbird that breaks lightning. The problem is that these Thunderbird packages are security updates and we should deliver them ASAP. We're starting the builds and fill update in bodhi on the release day so there is a little time to push it to users. I understand those people who's giving us bad karma because lightning doesn't work. However that's delaying security update even more. Today is Aug 22, the update was supposed to be released by mozilla on Aug 16. It made it into bodhi on Aug 17 (we had to solve few problems because of latest mozilla release policy, sources changing a lot more now between releases). It takes few hours to get the package to update-testing, it takes some time to let volunteer testers to install this package and get positive karma. After karma is high enough we're pushing it to stable which also takes few hours. We're just getting few days delay even if our packages are just fine. I understand that problem with missing calendar in Thunderbird might be really frustrating but we're getting very delayed security updates there. I'll try to rebuild the lightning package each time I'm doing thunderbird update. I don't want to change thunderbird-lightning package radically, as long as it is maintainer privilege, by uploading new sources, if he doesn't agree (Orion what do you think about it?). (In reply to comment #12) > I understand that problem with missing calendar in Thunderbird might be really > frustrating but we're getting very delayed security updates there. Jan, updates-testing is for catching bugs. Releasing updates in the vain of security (priority one! GO GO GO!) and having things break are what caused all security updates to require testing in the first place. I believe thunderbird was one of the reasons. If you want to debate the updates process you should take it to the devel list. Getting back to business: I'll mark positive karma on the updates now. Thanks all. Jan - I'm not a believer in maintainer=owner. The only reason I submitted the thunderbird-lightning package is that no one else did. I could use all the help I can get dealing with it. I'd happily give it up if anyone wanted it. I'm also still open to other ideas about how to deal with lightning. Hey Folks, speaking as a Lightning developer here. I'm sorry building Lightning has been such a pain, it has been a lot of pain for me too. Lightning 1.0b5 is special in a sense since I manually crammed a Thunderbird 6.0 compatible binary component into the release package. I did this to avoid the need for a separate release in the middle of my exams, and since our build infrastrucutre isn't far enough to create automatic releases. If we fix up our release automation so far that we can release just by pressing a button, then this special situation shouldn't show up again and it will be one binary component per release again. I can't make a commitment on this yet at the moment though, since I don't know how quickly things will progress in the next weeks. Philipp - thanks for coming on board here. What is critical for Fedora is timely source releases that match up with the current TB release. Thanks! I very much understand that and am working on making it easier. If we do decide to package more than one binary in a release again, in the future it will be easier and I have a work in progress unification script that will be part of the tree when we get there. *** Bug 720709 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. *** Seems like it's been working okay lately. Probably will revisit again next time there is major trouble. |