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

Re: Rebuilds needed for Fedora 8

> There are currently two technical issues that require rebuilding of
> packages.
> 1) a bad binutils was used in buildroots for almost two months that
> caused all ppc32 binaries to need execmem.  SELinux rightfully denies
> this.  We need to rebuild the effected packages so that ppc and SELinux
> work again.
> 2) build-id (http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Releases/FeatureBuildId)
> Any binary package with a debuginfo package that hasn't been built
> after the good build-id stuff landed needs to be rebuilt so that it has
> a build-id.
> The unique combination of these two has led to a list of 2845 packages
> that will need to be rebuilt.
> (http://jkeating.fedorapeople.org/really-need-to-rebuild)  That's 598
> packages that need rebuilding for the ppc32 issue, and 2831 that need
> building due to the build-id issue (there is obviously some crossover).
> At the absolute minimum we need the ppc32 builds done before Test2,
> which has a freeze date in one week.  We'd /like/ to have them all done
> as build-id is an important feature of Fedora 8 and Test2 is the
> Feature Freeze and if you're building 600 packages, might as well build
> 3K.
> A less technical but a nonetheless important rebuild issue is correct
> package licensing.  We have a goal to have all our packages with (a)
> correct License(s) tag in the spec file, and a build with that correct
> tag.  I do not have the numbers currently as to how many still need
> updating, it is not a small number.  Also important to note is that for
> the above technical issues no changes are needed in the package beyond
> a release bump and a build.  But for the license tag issue there is a
> significant number of packages that still have the invalid license and
> need auditing and changing.
> Given that with just the fully technical issues we're at just a bit
> over 1/2 the package set for Fedora we've got some hard choices to
> make.  Obviously we'd like to rely upon the maintainers to rebuild
> their packages, however with just a week to accomplish this that may be
> nearly impossible.  It's also a rather large number of packages to try
> and automate over, with a large degree of different $release values to
> try and automatically bump (especially without resorting to just
> plonking a ".1" to the end of everything which is against the
> guidelines).  There is also a rather large list of things that failed
> to rebuild during Matt Domsch's last rebuild test, and I don't know how
> many of those have been fixed.  That can cause some delays as well.
> So I ask you, great Fedora Community, how do we want to handle this
> situation?  I'm open for suggestions, but we should decide something
> before the end of the day given our time constraints.

If I've updated my license tags already, I just need to rebuild, and no
bump, correct?  And only in devel?

> I'm going to continue working on these lists and keeping them updated,
> perhaps getting a mapping of maintainer to package, or whatever format
> the community finds useful.
> --
> Jesse Keating
> Fedora -- All my bits are free, are yours?
> --
> fedora-devel-list mailing list
> fedora-devel-list redhat com
> https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list

novus ordo absurdum

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