FAQ Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read
» Video Reviews

» Linux Archive

Linux-archive is a website aiming to archive linux email lists and to make them easily accessible for linux users/developers.


» Sponsor

» Partners

» Sponsor

Go Back   Linux Archive > Redhat > Fedora Development

 
 
LinkBack Thread Tools
 
Old 04-07-2011, 03:02 PM
Matt Domsch
 
Default The future of FTBFS?

As my job and family responsibilities have shifted over time, I have
been giving less and less attention to the FTBFS (fails to
build from source) process that I started 5 years ago on a "see, it
_can_ be done" lark.

I think FTBFS has been valuable. Through the process, hundreds, maybe
even a couple thousand, bugs have been discovered and fixed before
they affected our users or downstream remixes and derivatives. I find
the breakage, file bugs, and the package owners fix them. Sure,
I get the occasional "why are you filling my mailbox with this"
message, but overall, the response has been very positive.

Question is, is it valuable enough to the Project as a whole, that
someone else should take it on now?

If so, should it become standard process of the Project, rather than a
personal project? With resources (koji servers) owned and managed by
the project, instead of the servers I could scrounge?

FTBFS cuts across Packagers, BugZappers, QA, Developers, and Release
Engineering. As such, I think it needs to be part of standard
processes for the Project.

Thanks,
Matt

--
Matt Domsch
Technology Strategist
Dell | Office of the CTO
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
 
Old 04-07-2011, 03:02 PM
Matt Domsch
 
Default The future of FTBFS?

As my job and family responsibilities have shifted over time, I have
been giving less and less attention to the FTBFS (fails to
build from source) process that I started 5 years ago on a "see, it
_can_ be done" lark.

I think FTBFS has been valuable. Through the process, hundreds, maybe
even a couple thousand, bugs have been discovered and fixed before
they affected our users or downstream remixes and derivatives. I find
the breakage, file bugs, and the package owners fix them. Sure,
I get the occasional "why are you filling my mailbox with this"
message, but overall, the response has been very positive.

Question is, is it valuable enough to the Project as a whole, that
someone else should take it on now?

If so, should it become standard process of the Project, rather than a
personal project? With resources (koji servers) owned and managed by
the project, instead of the servers I could scrounge?

FTBFS cuts across Packagers, BugZappers, QA, Developers, and Release
Engineering. As such, I think it needs to be part of standard
processes for the Project.

Thanks,
Matt

--
Matt Domsch
Technology Strategist
Dell | Office of the CTO
_______________________________________________
advisory-board mailing list
advisory-board@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/advisory-board
 
Old 04-07-2011, 03:20 PM
Jon Ciesla
 
Default The future of FTBFS?

Matt Domsch wrote:
> As my job and family responsibilities have shifted over time, I have
> been giving less and less attention to the FTBFS (fails to
> build from source) process that I started 5 years ago on a "see, it
> _can_ be done" lark.
>
> I think FTBFS has been valuable. Through the process, hundreds, maybe
> even a couple thousand, bugs have been discovered and fixed before
> they affected our users or downstream remixes and derivatives. I find
> the breakage, file bugs, and the package owners fix them. Sure,
> I get the occasional "why are you filling my mailbox with this"
> message, but overall, the response has been very positive.
>
> Question is, is it valuable enough to the Project as a whole, that
> someone else should take it on now?
>
> If so, should it become standard process of the Project, rather than a
> personal project? With resources (koji servers) owned and managed by
> the project, instead of the servers I could scrounge?
>
> FTBFS cuts across Packagers, BugZappers, QA, Developers, and Release
> Engineering. As such, I think it needs to be part of standard
> processes for the Project.
>
> Thanks,
> Matt
>
>
Agreed, I find in invaluable, and it should be standard. I'm not sure
who the best group is to own it, though.

-J

--
in your fear, seek only peace
in your fear, seek only love

-d. bowie

_______________________________________________
advisory-board mailing list
advisory-board@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/advisory-board
 
Old 04-07-2011, 03:20 PM
Jon Ciesla
 
Default The future of FTBFS?

Matt Domsch wrote:
> As my job and family responsibilities have shifted over time, I have
> been giving less and less attention to the FTBFS (fails to
> build from source) process that I started 5 years ago on a "see, it
> _can_ be done" lark.
>
> I think FTBFS has been valuable. Through the process, hundreds, maybe
> even a couple thousand, bugs have been discovered and fixed before
> they affected our users or downstream remixes and derivatives. I find
> the breakage, file bugs, and the package owners fix them. Sure,
> I get the occasional "why are you filling my mailbox with this"
> message, but overall, the response has been very positive.
>
> Question is, is it valuable enough to the Project as a whole, that
> someone else should take it on now?
>
> If so, should it become standard process of the Project, rather than a
> personal project? With resources (koji servers) owned and managed by
> the project, instead of the servers I could scrounge?
>
> FTBFS cuts across Packagers, BugZappers, QA, Developers, and Release
> Engineering. As such, I think it needs to be part of standard
> processes for the Project.
>
> Thanks,
> Matt
>
>
Agreed, I find in invaluable, and it should be standard. I'm not sure
who the best group is to own it, though.

-J

--
in your fear, seek only peace
in your fear, seek only love

-d. bowie

--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
 
Old 04-07-2011, 03:47 PM
Michael Schwendt
 
Default The future of FTBFS?

On Thu, 7 Apr 2011 10:02:31 -0500, Matt wrote:

> I think FTBFS has been valuable.

But of course!

> Sure, I get the occasional "why are you filling my mailbox with this"
> message, [...]

Wow. Unbelievable.
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
 
Old 04-07-2011, 03:58 PM
Jon Ciesla
 
Default The future of FTBFS?

Michael Schwendt wrote:
> On Thu, 7 Apr 2011 10:02:31 -0500, Matt wrote:
>
>
>> I think FTBFS has been valuable.
>>
>
> But of course!
>
>
>> Sure, I get the occasional "why are you filling my mailbox with this"
>> message, [...]
>>
>
> Wow. Unbelievable.
>
How dare you provide me with helpful information!!!! The nerve!!!! The
gall!!!!



--
in your fear, seek only peace
in your fear, seek only love

-d. bowie

--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
 
Old 04-07-2011, 04:11 PM
Jonathan Underwood
 
Default The future of FTBFS?

On 7 April 2011 16:02, Matt Domsch <Matt_Domsch@dell.com> wrote:
> Question is, is it valuable enough to the Project as a whole, that
> someone else should take it on now?

Absolutely!

Actually, have you published you use to BFS the scripts anywhere?

Jonathan.
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
 
Old 04-07-2011, 04:42 PM
Paul Wouters
 
Default The future of FTBFS?

On Thu, 7 Apr 2011, Matt Domsch wrote:

> FTBFS cuts across Packagers, BugZappers, QA, Developers, and Release
> Engineering. As such, I think it needs to be part of standard
> processes for the Project.

+1

Paul
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
 
Old 04-07-2011, 04:42 PM
Paul Wouters
 
Default The future of FTBFS?

On Thu, 7 Apr 2011, Matt Domsch wrote:

> FTBFS cuts across Packagers, BugZappers, QA, Developers, and Release
> Engineering. As such, I think it needs to be part of standard
> processes for the Project.

+1

Paul
_______________________________________________
advisory-board mailing list
advisory-board@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/advisory-board
 
Old 04-07-2011, 04:44 PM
Matt Domsch
 
Default The future of FTBFS?

On Thu, Apr 07, 2011 at 05:11:00PM +0100, Jonathan Underwood wrote:
> On 7 April 2011 16:02, Matt Domsch <Matt_Domsch@dell.com> wrote:
> > Question is, is it valuable enough to the Project as a whole, that
> > someone else should take it on now?
>
> Absolutely!
>
> Actually, have you published you use to BFS the scripts anywhere?

http://linux.dell.com/files/fedora/FixBuildRequires/ftbfs-nov08.tgz

though I admit the scripts are ugly as sin, and if someone were to
take this on, the first thing to do would be rewrite them all in a
non-bash language. Some of the individual helper scripts for
obtaining info from bugzilla, filing bugs in bugzilla, retriving the
list of package owners and emails, etc, would be nice to have in a
common library.

(FWIW, when I started the project, I did it because we had a need
around the Fedora 6 time frame to find out what was going to break in
a mass rebuild, the first for Fedora. I dind't intend it to live so
long, but as with all good ideas, they take on a life of their own.)

--
Matt Domsch
Technology Strategist
Dell | Office of the CTO
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
 

Thread Tools




All times are GMT. The time now is 12:03 PM.

VBulletin, Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO ©2007, Crawlability, Inc.
Copyright 2007 - 2008, www.linux-archive.org