[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]

Re: Revisiting the mass rebuild plans for EPEL5



Michael Stahnke schrieb:
> Yes, this is fine from my point of view.

k; other opinions?

> Do we have guidelines on where the EPEL SIG/SC roles stops and FESCO
> starts?

Well, I think we can normally act on our own. But FESCo is in the
hierarchy above us (and below the board); I'd expect they will leave us
alone as long as we do sane things and as long as they get notices of
important decisions or doings.

>  I would just like some clarification on what items the EPEL
> SC can actually decide and what is still left up to ratification of a
> higher power.

Well, you probably should better ask FESCo or some of it's members in
that case. Only real important things afaics needs "ratification", but
FESCo might always want to now what up and jump in if they don't like
something.

CU
thl

> On 4/12/07, Thorsten Leemhuis <fedora leemhuis info> wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> FESCo today nacked the rebuild plan from voting "1" in
>> https://www.redhat.com/archives/epel-devel-list/2007-April/msg00055.html
>> See the end of this mail for details. In short: FESCo afaics didn't like
>> to leave release unchanged.
>>
>> So I'd like to propose we switch back to the alternate plan (should
>> still be in the wiki at
>> http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/EPEL/SteeringCommittee/Voting
>> but the wiki is down currently aaics :-(  ) that I proposed in the vote.
>>
>> That would mean: We announce when RHEL5 is on the builders to the public
>> and give people round about 72 (?) hours to rebuild their EPEL5 packages
>> manually on their own (in case they want to do it themselves).
>> Everything that didn't get rebuild gets a ".1" added to release in cvs;
>> that change gets committed, tagged and build -- we afaik have a script
>> that should be able to do that and I can take care of running it if
>> that's okay for everyone.
>>
>> Does that sounds sane to everyone?
>>
>> CU
>> thl
>>
>> P.S.:here is the relevant part from the FESCo meeting:
>>
>> 19:42            --- | bpepple has changed the topic to: FESCO-Meeting
>> -- EPEL
>> 19:42 <     bpepple> | anything in regard to EPEL need to be discussed?
>> 19:42 <         jwb> | yes
>> 19:42              * | thl send some notes from this week to the list
>> 19:43 <         thl> | one hour or so ago
>> 19:43 <       tibbs> | notting: If you do have any ideas about that,
>> please let us know.
>> 19:43 <         jwb> | there was the buildroot issue Axel wanted acked
>> by FESCo
>> 19:43 <     notting> | tibbs: get out baseball bats and beat upstream? :)
>> 19:43              * | bpepple hasn't had a chance to read his e-mail
>> today. :(
>> 19:44 <         thl> | bpepple, it's about the "mass-rebuild of EPEL5
>> now that we soon have RHEL5 final on the builders"
>> 19:44 <         thl> | bpepple, it was voted to delete everything and
>> just rebuild
>> 19:44 <     bpepple> | thl: ok.
>> 19:44 <         jwb> | -1
>> 19:44 <         thl> | everything, without chaning ENVR
>> 19:44 <         f13> | er..
>> 19:44 <         jwb> | yeah, -1
>> 19:44 <         f13> | that may not bode well for clients whom already
>> ahve stuff installed
>> 19:45 <       nirik> | (note: only EPEL-5... not 4)
>> 19:45 <         thl> | f13, tell those that voted like that
>> 19:45 <         f13> | as noted many times before, packages changing
>> checksums and such get messy
>> 19:45 <         jwb> | f13, it was noted in their discussion.
>> apparently it didn't seem that big of a deal
>> 19:45              * | thl disliked that plan, too
>> 19:45 <         jwb> | are we voting on this yet?
>> 19:45 <         f13> | *shrug*  I don't run rhel5 so I won't get
>> effected by it.
>> 19:45 <         jwb> | f13, more than rhel5
>> 19:45 <     bpepple> | jwb: Yeah, we should do a quick vote.
>> 19:46 <       tibbs> | I'm still not understanding why you wouldn't want
>> to bump, and I read the IRC logs.
>> 19:46 <         jwb> | tibbs, me either
>> 19:46 <    dgilmore> | tibbs: becaue people did not want to fork the spec
>> 19:46 <         jwb> | that is just lazy
>> 19:46 <         thl> | jwb, +1
>> 19:46 <         jwb> | you're pissing on your users because you don't
>> want to make a 2 character change
>> 19:46 <    dgilmore> | i wanted to add a .1 and rebuild
>> 19:46 <       tibbs> | Ah, that is a point, but I don't think it's a
>> terribly good point.
>> 19:46 <         jwb> | dgilmore, that would be very acceptable
>> 19:46 <     c4chris> | yea, .1 and rebuild
>> 19:46 <     rdieter> | dgilmore: +1
>> 19:46 <       tibbs> | The spec will diverge pretty much immediately anyway.
>> 19:47 <         jwb> | right
>> 19:47 <         thl> | dgilmore, why did you vote for deleting the
>> packges then?
>> 19:47              * | thl is confused
>> 19:47 <     notting> | ? you don't need to fork the spec. just b/c the
>> release changes, doesn't mean you have to build and push for older releases
>> 19:47 <         jwb> | notting, fork it vs. the fedora spec
>> 19:47            <-- | sankarshan has quit (Connection timed out)
>> 19:47 <         f13> | notting: er, they have to bump the spec there,
>> but nowhere else, so now the specs are diverged
>> 19:48 <     notting> | *horrors*
>> 19:48 <       tibbs> | As I understand things, EPEL has no reason to
>> attempt to keep any kind of release ordering with Fedora.
>> 19:48 <    dgilmore> | thl: i was confused by then.
>> 19:48 <         f13> | not that I find anything _wrong_ with that.
>> 19:48 <       tibbs> | So it's not even appending ".1"; just bump the
>> release.
>> 19:48 <         f13> | nod
>> 19:48 <         thl> | dgilmore, np, I was just confused now
>> 19:48 <     notting> | thl: well, two issues. i'd be all for 'rebuild
>> and delete all old packages', but with a release bump
>> 19:48 <         thl> | tibbs, some people prefer to appending ".1" ovefr
>> bumpin the release
>> 19:48 <         f13> | is there a call for fesco vote?
>> 19:48 <         thl> | I think they have a point
>> 19:49 <         jwb> | f13, axel requested one
>> 19:49 <         f13> | or a point 1
>> 19:49 <         f13> | (:
>> 19:49 <         thl> | notting, sounds fine for me
>> 19:49 <     c4chris> | :-)
>> 19:49 <       tibbs> | OTOH, not rebuilding at all seems to be working
>> for Fedora at this point.  What's the reason they absolutely must be
>> rebuilt?
>> 19:49 < abadger1999> | tibbs: If they want to use the vanilla spec
>> later, using .1 lets them come back on the next Fedora Release rather
>> than the next upstream bump
>> 19:49 <       nirik> | tibbs: they were build against beta1
>> 19:49 <       tibbs> | abadger1999: Extremely good point.
>> 19:49 <         f13> | abadger1999: but that actually overwrites history
>> 19:50 <         f13> | unless they merge that .1 somewhere into the
>> history of hte FEdora spec
>> 19:50 <       nirik> | abadger1999: yeah, changelog is lost then if you
>> merge
>> 19:50 <       tibbs> | nirik: And we have .fc6 packages in F7; surely F7
>> diverges from FC6 more than rhel5b1 diverges from rhel5release.
>> 19:50 <         thl> | f13, is that really a big problem if it was just
>> a "rebuild" in the chanelog?
>> 19:50 <     notting> | dgilmore, this is only rebuilding things actually
>> built for EPEL, not everything in EPEL cvs, right?
>> 19:50 <         thl> | notting, yes, only what has been build up to now
>> 19:51 <         f13> | thl: it's not a really big problem, but I
>> generally don't like to see history get stomped
>> 19:51 <       nirik> | tibbs: yeah, you would think so... dunno for sure.
>> 19:51 <         thl> | f13, agreed; I think in this case it's still not
>> nice, but acceptable
>> 19:51 <         f13> | and who k nows what happens with the rebuild,
>> something may end up needing changed to build again against RHEL5 GA
>> 19:51 <         f13> | tibbs: you'd be surprised what all changed from
>> B1 to GOLD
>> 19:52              * | rdieter thinks we're not here to (re)make epel's
>> decision for them (or not?), just ack or nack it.
>> 19:52 <         f13> | -1
>> 19:52 <         f13> | (for their current plan)
>> 19:52 <         jwb> | -1
>> 19:52 <     c4chris> | (plan == rebuild and no bump, right)
>> 19:52 <         jwb> | rdieter, but we can nack with a suggested improvement
>> 19:52 <         thl> | c4chris, yes
>> 19:52 <         f13> | c4chris: yep
>> 19:53 <     bpepple> | c4chris: correct.
>> 19:53 <     c4chris> | k, -1 then
>> 19:53 <     notting> | -1
>> 19:53 <     bpepple> | -1 here also.
>> 19:53 <       tibbs> | Yeah, I hate to be an obstruction, but -1 to
>> rebuilding with no bump.
>> 19:53 < abadger1999> | -1
>> 19:53 <         thl> | jwb, I can take care of that if you want; i was
>> against this in any case ;-)
>> 19:53 <     bpepple> | so it looks like we against EPEL suggested plan.
>> 19:53 <         jwb> | thl, great
>> 19:54            <-- | gregdek has quit (Read error: 104 (Connection
>> reset by peer))
>> 19:54 <         thl> | bpepple, I'll get that out to epel and will take
>> care of it
>> 19:54 <    dgilmore> | notting: yeah just whats built
>> 19:54 <     bpepple> | thl: great, thanks.
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> epel-devel-list mailing list
>> epel-devel-list redhat com
>> https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/epel-devel-list
>>
> 
> _______________________________________________
> epel-devel-list mailing list
> epel-devel-list redhat com
> https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/epel-devel-list
> 


[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]