RFC: Mass rebuild of Fedora Extras before FC5 and how to handle orphaned packges for FC5

[Jeff Spaleta]

On 1/15/06, Josh Boyer <jwboyer at jdub.homelinux.org> wrote:
> 1) Create a FE5 blocker bug.
> 2) Open a rebuild bug for every package in devel and add it to #1.
> 3) Maintainers rebuild their packages, fixing issues as they encounter
> them.
> 4) Close the bugs as they are completed.

And what happens if maintainers fail to kick off rebuilds?  Or there
some sort of cascade such that an underlying dependancy package needs
to be rebuilt at the same time as another package but package A and
package B are maintained by different people?

I've been in conversations with at least 2 people in #fedora now about
weird oddness associated with extras-development rebuild attempts
under mock where a chain of packages needed to be rebuilt together or
else the rebuilt results failed.

I really think an effort needs to be made to do a mass-rebuild and let
notify maintainers based on the failures in that coordinated mass
rebuild.  The mass-rebuild tree doesn't necessarily need to be the
normal public tree. But I think a mass rebuild should be attempted and
the failures cataloged to see exactly how bad the gcc change has been
for Extras.

How long would it really take Core development to get its packageset
rebuilt if each Core maintainer was individually responsible for
rebuilds after the gcc changes?  Instead of having a coordinated
rebuild like Jesse pushed through the meatgrinder?

-jef