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

Re: Rebuilds needed for Fedora 8



On 21.08.2007 15:54, Jesse Keating wrote:
> [...]
> 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).

A sorting by owner would have made hunting for packagers way more easier
(especially if the number of packages owned is bigger then three or
something like that).

> 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).

Is adding a ".1" that bad after a warning period which allows the
maintainers to do it in better ways?

> 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.

- Don't slip FC8T2 for this
- tell packagers to rebuild their packages
- for all packages not rebuild or queued by <insert time> (let's say
Friday morning maybe?) add a ".1" to release and let a script kick the
rebuilds
- create and run a small script that pokes maintainers by mail which
didn't update the license tags yet
- for all packages which failed rebuild or which license tag was still
not updated in three weeks from now find a solution (nijas?)


CU
knurd


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