koji: not building against koji-built packages? bug or user issue?

[Axel Thimm]

On Tue, Jun 05, 2007 at 10:28:25AM -0400, Jesse Keating wrote:
> On Tuesday 05 June 2007 09:31:23 Axel Thimm wrote:
> > I built apt and synaptic in this order:
> >
> > ID: 7866: apt-0.5.15lorg3.2-10.fc7 (Finished: Sun, 03 Jun 2007 02:46:43
> > MST) ID: 7943: synaptic-0.57.2-7.fc7 (Started Mon, 04 Jun 2007 03:59:34
> > MST)
> >
> > e.g. there was more than one day in between. Still the synaptic build
> > used the old apt package, for example:
> >
> > http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/getfile?taskID=25522&name=root.log
> > ...
> > 0:apt-devel-0.5.15lorg3.2-9.fc7.i386
> > ...
> >
> > The proper apt package was even in updates-testing since 2007-06-03
> > 21:12:03.
> >
> > Did I do something wrong? If yes, how do I ensure that packages get
> > built against each-other before pushing to updates(-testing)? With the
> > former setup (plague) this was automatic. If not, why did koji not see
> > the 25h old package it built?
> 
> It got buried before, but the way that release trees are handled are different 
> than rawhide.  In Core, our release update candidates do not autopopulate the 
> buildroot.  This is to protect our buildroot from being poisoned by 
> potentially bad updates.  They are treated as candidate updates and not 
> entered into the buildroot until they are pushed as a stable update.  There 
> is an override tag that rel-eng can use to make a build temporarily available 
> to build the rest of a stack for an update.  I don't like the scenario at all 
> and I'm welcome to ideas.  Just self updating the buildroot seems like a bad 
> idea to me and some of my colleagues who have been doing RHL/RHEL stuff for 
> far longer than I have.  Ideally we'd have a way to chainbuild things 
> together in such a way that it doesn't poison the rest of the buildroots for 
> that tag, basically making them available for your build and your build 
> alone.  I honestly don't know what kind of work it would take to get this 
> though.
> 
> Anyway I'm open for discussion.  I went forward with what Core developers are 
> used to, and I hoped I had warned people but it probably got lost.  I would 
> love to discuss it at a rel-eng meeting, we ran out of time last week.

Did this poisoning happen often in Fedora Extras? If not then maybe
it's better to assume that the packages are not poisoning the
buildroots, and assume the Fedora Extras way instead of the Core way?

> For now, you can request buildroot overrides by 
> mailing 'rel-eng at fedoraproject.org'.  What place in the wiki should this 
> information go?
> 





-- 
Axel.Thimm at ATrpms.net
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://listman.redhat.com/archives/fedora-maintainers/attachments/20070605/03bc0ea1/attachment.sig>