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

Re: RFC: automated broken deps reports



>>>>> "Michael" == Michael Schwendt <bugs michael gmx net> writes:

Michael> As discussed briefly in the last meeting of FESCO, there are
Michael> a few open questions with regard to running a script that
Michael> does automated checking of broken dependencies in Fedora
Michael> Extras:

Michael> * How often to run it?

Michael> Daily? After every push of new builds for Fedora Extras? If

I think it would be most usefull after each push of new builds. 

Michael> Rawhide breaks something how do we become aware of that in
Michael> time? That is, do we know exactly when new packages are
Michael> pushed in Rawhide so the script would not run before that? 
Michael> Does it matter? The next run a day later would catch broken
Michael> deps. Do we, at Fedora Extras, have big interest in knowing
Michael> quickly when changes in Rawhide break anything in Extras? 
Michael> Reports of broken packages are not worthwhile if rebuilds or
Michael> fixes won't happen until packagers track and "support"
Michael> Rawhide or unless a special team at Fedora Extras takes over
Michael> doing the rebuilds for devel.

Michael> * Whether to mail a summary of all broken dependencies to
Michael> fedora-extras-list?

I think we should. This would allow people to comment and see how the
list of packages as a whole are doing. 

Michael> So far, during the few public test-runs, a packager received
Michael> a summary of all broken dependencies for all his broken
Michael> packages in a single mail. What format should a complete
Michael> summary, which is posted to fedora-extras-list, have, so it
Michael> would be useful and readable? Maybe

Michael>   package name version repository e-mail or srcrpm name
Michael> repository e-mail or package name version

Michael> sorted by name or sorted by e-mail and grouped by arch? With
Michael> the full summary at the bottom? Ideas? The complete list of

How about listed twice: 

First set is: 
  package name   version   repository   e-mail

and then sorted again: 

  email package name   version   repository

So that maintainers could easily spot all their packages? 

Michael> broken packages in Fedora Extras Development is not
Michael> short. Additionally, if reports for FE3, FE4 and FE
Michael> Development were squeezed into the same mail, that would
Michael> decrease readability even more. Create individuals mails for
Michael> FE3/FE4/FE5?  (that almost sounds like it could be merged
Michael> with the "new packages" report)

I would say split them up per branch. 

Michael> * How often to mail the packager?

Michael> Would it be considered an annoyance to mail the packager
Michael> daily because the script is run every day? Would it be enough
Michael> to mail once then not repeat the reports for 7-14 days or
Michael> unless the src.rpm file name changes?

I would think an email each time it's run isn't too bad... 
Would perhaps get people fixing broken packages. On the other hand it
might annoy people. :( Perhaps start out that way and see if people
don't like that often?

Michael> [...]

Michael> The current scripts and their working directory can be found
Michael> here for anybody who likes to take a look:
Michael> http://home.arcor.de/ms2002sep/tmp/repoclosure-modified-20060208.tgz

Oh, as a somewhat related note... would removing all the orphaned
packages from the repo reduce the size of this report?

I see a number of the packages with broken deps are also on the orphan
list. That seems like they would be unlikely to get fixed ever until
they have a maintainer. I would think we would want to remove a
package if it has no maintainer... surely before fc5 release? 

kevin

Attachment: pgp43MtcF8g3X.pgp
Description: PGP signature


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