Inconsistent package tags

[Jesse Keating]

On Sunday 24 June 2007 21:14:32 n0dalus wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> On my rawhide system, I noticed that there are a lot of packages with
> inconsistent tags. There are (numbers in brackets are for packages
> built in the past 14 days):
> - 369 (216) packages with fc8 in the release tag (shouldn't we be using
> f8?) 

No, fedora collection 8.

> - 354 (1) packages with fc7 in the release tag 

We still inherit many Fedora 7 builds.  Unless there is a good technical 
reason to rebuild them we don't waste resources in rebuilding just for a 
cosmetic package version.

> - 205 (27) packages with no fedora version in the release tag

dist tag is optional.  In many cases it is preferred to /not/ have one, like 
data files that won't change from release to release.  No sense in rebuilding 
them all the time, just update the oldest supported release first, and all 
the newer collections will inherit it.

> - 42 (0) packages with fc6 in the release tag

Again, we still inherit some packages all the way back to fc6.  If there is 
significant technical reason to rebuild then they would be, but cosmetics is 
not a reason.

> - 465 (0) packages with Vendor: Red Hat, Inc

Built internally as part of "Core"

> - 431 (244) packages with Vendor: Fedora Project

Built with Koji and/or Plague IIRC

> - 74 (0) packages with Vendor: Koji

Built with Koji for a short period of time where we lost the Vendor 
definitions.  Not a reason to rebuild, they'll pick up the new Vendor tag 
next time they're built for a real reason.

> - 465 (0) packages with Packager: Red Hat, Inc.
> <http://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla>
> - 363 (244) packages with Packager: Fedora Project
> - 74 (0) packages with Packager: Koji
> - 68 (0) packages with Packager: Fedora Project
> <http://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla>

See above response, same thing going on here.

>
> - 437 (244) packages with Distribution: Unknown

This may be the only actual problem I see here.  Perhaps we lost Distribution 
definition in our current koji setup. I'll investigate.

> - 369 (0) packages with Distribution: Red Hat (FC-7)
> - 90 (0) packages with Distribution: Red Hat (FC-6)
> - 68 (0) packages with Distribution: Fedora Extras
> - 6 (0) packages with Distribution: (none)
>
> - 759 (243) packages with Signature: (none)
> - 81 (0) packages with Signature: fd372689897da07a (Red Hat Beta?)
> - 72 (1) packages with Signature: b44269d04f2a6fd2 (Fedora?)
> - 58 (0) packages with Signature: 82ed95041ac70ce6 (Extras?)

Inheritance once again, and we don't automatically sign Rawhide builds at this 
time.

> Obviously a lot of these packages haven't gone through the build
> system of late, but even the ones that have still show a few
> inconsistencies. Is this something that is being worked on?

I only saw one issue above that needs any attention, and that's the 
Distribution tag.

-- 
Jesse Keating
Release Engineer: Fedora
-------------- 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/20070625/bf87df20/attachment.sig>