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

Re: Rebuilds needed for Fedora 8



On Tue, 21 Aug 2007 15:42:54 +0100
"Christopher Brown" <snecklifter gmail com> wrote:

> On 21/08/07, Jesse Keating <jkeating redhat com> wrote:
> >
> > 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.
> >
> > 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.
> 
> 
> How does this sound?

Way too complicated.

> 1. Slip T2 by one week.

There's no need for that yet.

> 2. ping fedora-devel-announce that conditions that $PACKAGE needs rebuilding
> in two weeks

Too many packages to do that individually.

> 3. after one week ACL's are opened to people in 4. in a dirty great package
> license check and rebuild free-for-all (mention this in 2.)
> 4. For a group of any Fedorites who show interest add their names to all
> ACLs on understanding that only License tag and rebuild can occur.

Group 4 is rel-eng.  There's no need to open any additional ACLs.

josh


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