Revisiting the mass rebuild plans for EPEL5

Michael Stahnke mastahnke at gmail.com
Thu Apr 12 19:56:13 UTC 2007


Yes, this is fine from my point of view.

Do we have guidelines on where the EPEL SIG/SC roles stops and FESCO
starts?  I would just like some clarification on what items the EPEL
SC can actually decide and what is still left up to ratification of a
higher power.

stahnma

On 4/12/07, Thorsten Leemhuis <fedora at leemhuis.info> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> FESCo today nacked the rebuild plan from voting "1" in
> https://www.redhat.com/archives/epel-devel-list/2007-April/msg00055.html
> See the end of this mail for details. In short: FESCo afaics didn't like
> to leave release unchanged.
>
> So I'd like to propose we switch back to the alternate plan (should
> still be in the wiki at
> http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/EPEL/SteeringCommittee/Voting
> but the wiki is down currently aaics :-(  ) that I proposed in the vote.
>
> That would mean: We announce when RHEL5 is on the builders to the public
> and give people round about 72 (?) hours to rebuild their EPEL5 packages
> manually on their own (in case they want to do it themselves).
> Everything that didn't get rebuild gets a ".1" added to release in cvs;
> that change gets committed, tagged and build -- we afaik have a script
> that should be able to do that and I can take care of running it if
> that's okay for everyone.
>
> Does that sounds sane to everyone?
>
> CU
> thl
>
> P.S.:here is the relevant part from the FESCo meeting:
>
> 19:42            --- | bpepple has changed the topic to: FESCO-Meeting
> -- EPEL
> 19:42 <     bpepple> | anything in regard to EPEL need to be discussed?
> 19:42 <         jwb> | yes
> 19:42              * | thl send some notes from this week to the list
> 19:43 <         thl> | one hour or so ago
> 19:43 <       tibbs> | notting: If you do have any ideas about that,
> please let us know.
> 19:43 <         jwb> | there was the buildroot issue Axel wanted acked
> by FESCo
> 19:43 <     notting> | tibbs: get out baseball bats and beat upstream? :)
> 19:43              * | bpepple hasn't had a chance to read his e-mail
> today. :(
> 19:44 <         thl> | bpepple, it's about the "mass-rebuild of EPEL5
> now that we soon have RHEL5 final on the builders"
> 19:44 <         thl> | bpepple, it was voted to delete everything and
> just rebuild
> 19:44 <     bpepple> | thl: ok.
> 19:44 <         jwb> | -1
> 19:44 <         thl> | everything, without chaning ENVR
> 19:44 <         f13> | er..
> 19:44 <         jwb> | yeah, -1
> 19:44 <         f13> | that may not bode well for clients whom already
> ahve stuff installed
> 19:45 <       nirik> | (note: only EPEL-5... not 4)
> 19:45 <         thl> | f13, tell those that voted like that
> 19:45 <         f13> | as noted many times before, packages changing
> checksums and such get messy
> 19:45 <         jwb> | f13, it was noted in their discussion.
> apparently it didn't seem that big of a deal
> 19:45              * | thl disliked that plan, too
> 19:45 <         jwb> | are we voting on this yet?
> 19:45 <         f13> | *shrug*  I don't run rhel5 so I won't get
> effected by it.
> 19:45 <         jwb> | f13, more than rhel5
> 19:45 <     bpepple> | jwb: Yeah, we should do a quick vote.
> 19:46 <       tibbs> | I'm still not understanding why you wouldn't want
> to bump, and I read the IRC logs.
> 19:46 <         jwb> | tibbs, me either
> 19:46 <    dgilmore> | tibbs: becaue people did not want to fork the spec
> 19:46 <         jwb> | that is just lazy
> 19:46 <         thl> | jwb, +1
> 19:46 <         jwb> | you're pissing on your users because you don't
> want to make a 2 character change
> 19:46 <    dgilmore> | i wanted to add a .1 and rebuild
> 19:46 <       tibbs> | Ah, that is a point, but I don't think it's a
> terribly good point.
> 19:46 <         jwb> | dgilmore, that would be very acceptable
> 19:46 <     c4chris> | yea, .1 and rebuild
> 19:46 <     rdieter> | dgilmore: +1
> 19:46 <       tibbs> | The spec will diverge pretty much immediately anyway.
> 19:47 <         jwb> | right
> 19:47 <         thl> | dgilmore, why did you vote for deleting the
> packges then?
> 19:47              * | thl is confused
> 19:47 <     notting> | ? you don't need to fork the spec. just b/c the
> release changes, doesn't mean you have to build and push for older releases
> 19:47 <         jwb> | notting, fork it vs. the fedora spec
> 19:47            <-- | sankarshan has quit (Connection timed out)
> 19:47 <         f13> | notting: er, they have to bump the spec there,
> but nowhere else, so now the specs are diverged
> 19:48 <     notting> | *horrors*
> 19:48 <       tibbs> | As I understand things, EPEL has no reason to
> attempt to keep any kind of release ordering with Fedora.
> 19:48 <    dgilmore> | thl: i was confused by then.
> 19:48 <         f13> | not that I find anything _wrong_ with that.
> 19:48 <       tibbs> | So it's not even appending ".1"; just bump the
> release.
> 19:48 <         f13> | nod
> 19:48 <         thl> | dgilmore, np, I was just confused now
> 19:48 <     notting> | thl: well, two issues. i'd be all for 'rebuild
> and delete all old packages', but with a release bump
> 19:48 <         thl> | tibbs, some people prefer to appending ".1" ovefr
> bumpin the release
> 19:48 <         f13> | is there a call for fesco vote?
> 19:48 <         thl> | I think they have a point
> 19:49 <         jwb> | f13, axel requested one
> 19:49 <         f13> | or a point 1
> 19:49 <         f13> | (:
> 19:49 <         thl> | notting, sounds fine for me
> 19:49 <     c4chris> | :-)
> 19:49 <       tibbs> | OTOH, not rebuilding at all seems to be working
> for Fedora at this point.  What's the reason they absolutely must be
> rebuilt?
> 19:49 < abadger1999> | tibbs: If they want to use the vanilla spec
> later, using .1 lets them come back on the next Fedora Release rather
> than the next upstream bump
> 19:49 <       nirik> | tibbs: they were build against beta1
> 19:49 <       tibbs> | abadger1999: Extremely good point.
> 19:49 <         f13> | abadger1999: but that actually overwrites history
> 19:50 <         f13> | unless they merge that .1 somewhere into the
> history of hte FEdora spec
> 19:50 <       nirik> | abadger1999: yeah, changelog is lost then if you
> merge
> 19:50 <       tibbs> | nirik: And we have .fc6 packages in F7; surely F7
> diverges from FC6 more than rhel5b1 diverges from rhel5release.
> 19:50 <         thl> | f13, is that really a big problem if it was just
> a "rebuild" in the chanelog?
> 19:50 <     notting> | dgilmore, this is only rebuilding things actually
> built for EPEL, not everything in EPEL cvs, right?
> 19:50 <         thl> | notting, yes, only what has been build up to now
> 19:51 <         f13> | thl: it's not a really big problem, but I
> generally don't like to see history get stomped
> 19:51 <       nirik> | tibbs: yeah, you would think so... dunno for sure.
> 19:51 <         thl> | f13, agreed; I think in this case it's still not
> nice, but acceptable
> 19:51 <         f13> | and who k nows what happens with the rebuild,
> something may end up needing changed to build again against RHEL5 GA
> 19:51 <         f13> | tibbs: you'd be surprised what all changed from
> B1 to GOLD
> 19:52              * | rdieter thinks we're not here to (re)make epel's
> decision for them (or not?), just ack or nack it.
> 19:52 <         f13> | -1
> 19:52 <         f13> | (for their current plan)
> 19:52 <         jwb> | -1
> 19:52 <     c4chris> | (plan == rebuild and no bump, right)
> 19:52 <         jwb> | rdieter, but we can nack with a suggested improvement
> 19:52 <         thl> | c4chris, yes
> 19:52 <         f13> | c4chris: yep
> 19:53 <     bpepple> | c4chris: correct.
> 19:53 <     c4chris> | k, -1 then
> 19:53 <     notting> | -1
> 19:53 <     bpepple> | -1 here also.
> 19:53 <       tibbs> | Yeah, I hate to be an obstruction, but -1 to
> rebuilding with no bump.
> 19:53 < abadger1999> | -1
> 19:53 <         thl> | jwb, I can take care of that if you want; i was
> against this in any case ;-)
> 19:53 <     bpepple> | so it looks like we against EPEL suggested plan.
> 19:53 <         jwb> | thl, great
> 19:54            <-- | gregdek has quit (Read error: 104 (Connection
> reset by peer))
> 19:54 <         thl> | bpepple, I'll get that out to epel and will take
> care of it
> 19:54 <    dgilmore> | notting: yeah just whats built
> 19:54 <     bpepple> | thl: great, thanks.
>
> _______________________________________________
> epel-devel-list mailing list
> epel-devel-list at redhat.com
> https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/epel-devel-list
>




More information about the epel-devel-list mailing list