Rebuilds needed for Fedora 8

[Axel Thimm]

On Tue, Aug 21, 2007 at 09:54:11AM -0400, Jesse Keating wrote:
> 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.

The following suggestion will not buy you any lunch for fixing the
issue *now*, but this is the rigth time to address this, as when it
was addressed in the past the pain was not there:

Imagine all packages in rawhide not having a disttag of fc8 (98% of
specfiles have a disttag), but one of fc7_90 reflecting the state they
were in, e.g. FC8test1. Next imagine one person of rel-eng bumping
that to fc7_91 and koji picking this up.

 * covers 98% of all packages, e.g. from 3k rebuilds you only need to
   cater for 60 packages and these 60 are data packages, so no rebuild
   needed anyway

 * no need for "call for maintainers' duties", the rebuilds happen
   from the same specfile

That's the way ATrpsm works for a couple of years, and I never had any
headaches with rebuilding stuff. As said this would had saved the day
if it was decided upon half a year ago - the argument there was that
"we'll just rebuild what we need". This will not save F8, but maybe
it's worth considering for F9 and beyond ...

So please, now that some real non-academic light is shed on the issue
do consider the introduction of fractional rawhide disttags. IIRC it
was maybe Jesse that opposed this when discussed in the FPC (not that
everyone else was dancing in favour of this either ;)
-- 
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-devel-list/attachments/20070821/80b0705f/attachment.sig>