Broken dependencies script at it again

Steve Traylen steve.traylen at cern.ch
Sat Nov 14 22:36:27 UTC 2009


On Sat, Nov 14, 2009 at 11:06 PM, Jesse Keating
<jkeating at j2solutions.net> wrote:
>
>
> On Nov 14, 2009, at 13:53, Sam Varshavchik <mrsam at courier-mta.com> wrote:
>
> Tom Lane writes:
>
> Mike McGrath <mmcgrath at redhat.com> writes:
>
> Are people +1'ing getting rid of the broken dependencies script
>
> altogether?  or +1'ing to predicting the future and stopping it before it
>
> breaks?
>
> I thought the +1's were for putting in some circuit breakers, so
>
> that when (not if) it breaks again, it won't spam the entire package
>
> Proposed circuit breaker: if more than 5% of packages supposedly have broken
> dependencies.
>
>
> Sounds reasonable. Accepting patches if you want this done in the new
> future.

$ repoclosure -r updates | grep '^     '  | sort | uniq -c | sort -gr | head
    167      rtld(GNU_HASH)
    130      /sbin/ldconfig
    127      libc.so.6(GLIBC_2.2.5)(64bit)
    127      libc.so.6()(64bit)
    101      /bin/sh

on the repo... But this is not the new rawhide (it's updates on its
own) repo of
course. I'm not sure where that actually is at the moment?
Will look at how the rawhide report is created. The results belong in there.


> --
> Jes
> --
> fedora-devel-list mailing list
> fedora-devel-list at redhat.com
> https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
>



-- 
Steve Traylen




More information about the fedora-devel-list mailing list