Monday, March 14, 2011

Building RPMs vs Building DEBs

Having a large experience with Debian package building it's refreshing to try something else. Last week I have learned the basics of RPM package building.
Here are the differences I have found so far and my opinions about them.

The RPM .spec file package contains both package metadata (description, dependencies, etc) and compile rules while on DEB you have the data split into different files. I remember that on the beginning it was hard to understand the purpose of all those debian/* files, I have found .spec files easier to understand.

The RPM .specs allows conditional building, during build the build target release can be used to dynamically adjust build flags, dependencies etc. While you can achieve this on Debian using some auto generation mechanism (debian/, it is not naturally integrated in the building system, debian/* contains metadata and rules for a specific target system.

Not so important but a nice feature it's the support for translated description/summary on RPM packages.

Saturday, March 5, 2011

Some differences between Fedora and Ubuntu

I have already noted a few technical differences between Fedora and Ubuntu which I am going to comment.

/tmp cleanup
Fedora does not automatically remove /tmp contents on reboot, I prefer Ubuntu's behavior, applications do not rely on tmp contents across reboots and regular users should not be working on /tmp. If there is no other automated cleanup mechanism -did not check yet-, on the long run the user will get a full root file system.

Repository information cache
I don’t have a YUM technical background, so please excuse me if I will write something terribly wrong here.
From an user perspective I have noted that yum does not have an explicit cache mechanism, you don’t need to explicitly update the cache. The good side it automatically gets the required information when a new repository is added and frees the user from a repetitive action. The bad side is that it may introduce some network/time overhead during package management opertions.

Software update policy
I did not read Fedora’s update policy yet but I have noted that they provide regular release upgrades for some software, piding was updated to 2.7.10 from the regular updates repository.

Friday, March 4, 2011

Impressions from Linux Mint 10 Main Edition

Now that I am confident on the Fedora install I could afford to use my other partition and try Linux Mint 10 as suggested by a friend.

The out-of-the box visual experience was one of the best I had so far with a Linux distribution, the menu -mintmenu- seems highly inspired in MS Windows menus, from my reading it's a fork of the SLAB Menu, I really loved the easy navigation and search capability.
Linux Mint 10 is based and compatible with Ubuntu 10.10, the default configuration points to the linux mint repository plus the Ubuntu archives for the usual packages.

Besides the menu they provide their own set of tools, you can easily identify them with ls /usr/bin/mint*, some of them are just wrappers or tiny tools, but it shows they are working not only on cosmetics.

I did not find any documentation about their decision making process or governance in general, but I have sent an email asking for information.

They do care about community feedback, judging from the running poll .
There is a Debian based version (which I did not test yet), and it seems they will be deciding about switching to Debian for other flavors.

I will keep an eye on it, it may be a nice project to join.

First day with Fedora 14

I am starting my adventure searching for a new FOOS project to get involved with. I still think that a Linux distribution is one of the most interesting type of projects. We have so much Free Software that is not reaching yet those who would benefit from it.

Yesterday I have switched from Ubuntu 10.10 to Fedora 14 I have chosen to try Fedora because it has an open governance model with a clear leadership. While there are a clear special capacities from the sponsor (RedHat), at the highest level the project is managed by an Executive Board, the board is composed with a mix of RH appointed and community elected members.

Now back to my first day experience, I was afraid that it would be an hard experience, I use Linux for my primary workstation so it really needs to work.
The install was smoothly, I did found a bug on a specific case of setting up an user with an existing home dir containing invalid symbolic links, nothing serious.

I was able to install all my job required tools using Fedora 64 bits thanks to the multiarch supports which allows to install both 32 and 64 package versions, this is something I could not achieve with Ubuntu 64 bits, ia32libs is not sufficient for my case.
All the software that I needed was available from repositories or as an .rpm from upstream: Filezilla, KeepassX, Zim, X-Chat, Skype, VirtualBox, gnomedo, tsocks, eclipse, cairo-dock, geany. dropbox, pidgin .

During a full work day I have found no significant usability differences between Fedora an Ubuntu.

The only issue I had so far was related yum repository errors, this is one of my next steps, to understand Fedora repository types and package building.

I will also try to understand if the distribution itself is effectively governed as documented.

Wednesday, March 2, 2011

Stepping down considerately

This is the right time to apply the last guide line from Ubuntu's Code of Conduct.

I have started as an Ubuntu user in 2005, I have found it a promising project mostly because it was aimed at "humans" users, while most similar projects had still a greater focus on developers or development oriented aspects.
Getting involved was easy, the developers could be found on IRC some of them more friendly than others but always there, a point of connection with the community.
As soon I had some know-how I have started participating in the forums, each question was an opportunity for teaching, learning or improving, it was a great experience.

During this stage I have found that a lot of answers were related on how to get a specific version of a software, or people failing to do it. The most frequently answer was teaching how to build from source. That did not seem good to me.
We were promoting all this great thing of Free Software, but we were unable to deliver the latest version meeting a particular need without requesting the "human" user to get some application building skills ?

I have tried to engage the packaging (MOTU) team, It just didn't work for me. I was too eager to cover this need -only partially addressed by the back-ports project-. I did not find the process appealing I had no idea how to improve it, I just had minimal packaging skills.
People were not asking for the proper package, they just needed one that worked without disrupting their system (like they frequently did, compiling or installing from other releases). The GetDeb project was setup, it delivers packages to thousands of users.

Lately I have mostly participated on which in my opinion is Ubuntu's mostly valuable free support center.

I will be looking for other Free Software collaboration opportunities, with a strong leadership that practices open governance and uses decision capacities that comes from transparency, straight discussion and communication.

Thanks to Mark Shuttleworth for setting up a great project and paying the salaries to so many brilliant people.
Thanks to all the Ubuntu users and developers for helping and letting me help building a Free Software and Open Source solution.

Tuesday, March 1, 2011

Ubuntu Community Council Experience

As reported in a previous post I have requested the Ubuntu Community Council for the definition of a control process for non technical driven changes .
Today I have attended to the CC meeting and I would like to share my experience.

I was able to expose my concerns, I got a long feedback from Mark, and as I understood his position and because no one was able to identify actions that worth be taken, everything is fine with Ubuntu change management. If you need more information about changes the recommended process is just to ask Mark he will point you to the right person.

My feeling about the CC board per si, is that, except for Mark which had Canonical/himself all over his conversation, the Ubuntu community was properly represented.
However because the CC lacks any executive capacity, that meeting felt mostly like a social event to get the pulse of the Ubuntu community, not an event to have effective discussion of ideas.

Logs available at: