Package EVR problems in FC+FE 2006-12-02

[Michael Schwendt]

On Sat, 02 Dec 2006 15:16:01 -0800, Peter Gordon wrote:

> On Sat, 2006-12-02 at 11:00 -0600, Jason L Tibbitts III wrote:
> > >Axel.Thimm AT ATrpms.net:
> > >    smart
> > >      FE4 > FE7 (0:0.42-40.fc4 > 0:0.42-39.fc6)
> > >      FE5 > FE7 (0:0.42-40.fc5 > 0:0.42-39.fc6)
> > >      FE6 > FE7 (0:0.42-40.fc6 > 0:0.42-39.fc6)
> > 
> > I wonder if it would be reasonable to suppress rawhide in this report
> > until we get closer to test time.  Since rawhide occasionally doesn't
> > build, and maintainers often concentrate on released versions when
> > fixing important bugs or pushing security fixes, the information often
> > isn't pertinent.

Is it that all this breakage is due to failed rebuild attempts?

Or is it that Rawhide and FE Development are just in bad shape because
most (or all) package maintainers don't even know that they are supposed
to prepare their packages in there, too? (read: no roadmap for Fedora
Extras, no guidance by FESCO)

In case there are failed rebuild attempts that might benefit from exposure
and contributions, why not open a bugzilla ticket and make it block the
FE7Target tracker bug?

Recently I've mentioned that I've filed a couple of bugs about broken
upgrade paths (which affect FC6 or older), and the activity in those
tickets is, well, poor.