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 04-01-2008, 01:42 PM
Hans de Goede
 
Default FTBFS Bug Filing and Handling proposal

Matt Domsch wrote:

A proposal for consideration.
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/MattDomsch/FTBFS

Proposal

This is only a proposal. It will be edited before being approved.
Feedback requested.

FTBFS (Fails To Build From Source)

In the interest of keeping Fedora as a self-hosted distribution
(meaning you can use Fedora version Z to build Fedora version Z from
source RPMs), MattDomsch regularly runs a full rebuild of the
"rawhide" tree, building rawhide with rawhide. This catches a number
of packages that no longer build, and need developer attention. The
results of each run are presently mailed to each failing package's
owner and cc: list (as noted in the package database), and sent to
fedora-devel-list.

In the interest of tracking these failures, new bugs for each failing
package will be filed in Bugzilla. These bugs will all block a blocker
bug, alias "FTBFS". Included in these bugs will be the root.log and
build.log from mock. These bugs should start life in a state of
ASSIGNED, since they are by definition pre-triaged.

On subsequent runs to the first, a check will be made that there is
not already a bug that's blocking FTBFS for the package in
question. If there is, a comment will be made in the existing bug. If
there's not, a new bug will be filed against the package.

Challenges

* avoiding false positives. It somewhat often happens that a whole
class of failures are due to either build system
mis-configuration, mirrors being slightly out of sync.
* bugs in required packages. If glibc is broken on a particular
day, it can affect a large number of package builds. It's most
appropriate to file a single bug against glibc in this case
rather than many bugs against each package that hit the
bug. Unfortunately, figuring this out requires human
intervention.
1. Being that this is a monthly event, I think that simple
sanity checking is really all that's required here - nothing
fancy. Rebuild and filing should be two separate phases, so that
these issues can be caught.


Proposal

* File bugs, once for each package.
* Block FTBFS
* FTBFS blocks Target tracker for next release
* attach root.log and build.log from each architecture that has failed.
* Fedora version = 'rawhide'
* Follow up with public shame on bugs >30 days???
* run monthly



+1,

One note the public part of the script should check if the already filed
bug is blocking on some other bug before doing the public shaming.


I've been busy failing my FTBFS packages today and 5 of them fail to
build due to an ImageMagick bug (which I'm currently hunting down).


Regards,

Hans

--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
 
Old 04-01-2008, 01:43 PM
Matt Domsch
 
Default FTBFS Bug Filing and Handling proposal

A proposal for consideration.
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/MattDomsch/FTBFS

Proposal

This is only a proposal. It will be edited before being approved.
Feedback requested.

FTBFS (Fails To Build From Source)

In the interest of keeping Fedora as a self-hosted distribution
(meaning you can use Fedora version Z to build Fedora version Z from
source RPMs), MattDomsch regularly runs a full rebuild of the
"rawhide" tree, building rawhide with rawhide. This catches a number
of packages that no longer build, and need developer attention. The
results of each run are presently mailed to each failing package's
owner and cc: list (as noted in the package database), and sent to
fedora-devel-list.

In the interest of tracking these failures, new bugs for each failing
package will be filed in Bugzilla. These bugs will all block a blocker
bug, alias "FTBFS". Included in these bugs will be the root.log and
build.log from mock. These bugs should start life in a state of
ASSIGNED, since they are by definition pre-triaged.

On subsequent runs to the first, a check will be made that there is
not already a bug that's blocking FTBFS for the package in
question. If there is, a comment will be made in the existing bug. If
there's not, a new bug will be filed against the package.

Challenges

* avoiding false positives. It somewhat often happens that a whole
class of failures are due to either build system
mis-configuration, mirrors being slightly out of sync.
* bugs in required packages. If glibc is broken on a particular
day, it can affect a large number of package builds. It's most
appropriate to file a single bug against glibc in this case
rather than many bugs against each package that hit the
bug. Unfortunately, figuring this out requires human
intervention.
1. Being that this is a monthly event, I think that simple
sanity checking is really all that's required here - nothing
fancy. Rebuild and filing should be two separate phases, so that
these issues can be caught.

Proposal

* File bugs, once for each package.
* Block FTBFS
* FTBFS blocks Target tracker for next release
* attach root.log and build.log from each architecture that has failed.
* Fedora version = 'rawhide'
* Follow up with public shame on bugs >30 days???
* run monthly



Feedback to this list, and/or edit the wiki directly.

Thanks,
Matt

--
Matt Domsch
Linux Technology Strategist, Dell Office of the CTO
linux.dell.com & www.dell.com/linux

--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
 
Old 04-01-2008, 02:11 PM
José Matos
 
Default FTBFS Bug Filing and Handling proposal

On Tuesday 01 April 2008 14:43:25 Matt Domsch wrote:
> Feedback to this list, and/or edit the wiki directly.
>
> Thanks,
> Matt

+1
I like it.

Now back to fix those FTBFS bugs that slipped under my radar. :-)

> --
> Matt Domsch

--
José Abílio

--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
 
Old 04-01-2008, 02:57 PM
Kevin Kofler
 
Default FTBFS Bug Filing and Handling proposal

Matt Domsch <Matt_Domsch <at> dell.com> writes:
> In the interest of tracking these failures, new bugs for each failing
> package will be filed in Bugzilla. These bugs will all block a blocker
> bug, alias "FTBFS". Included in these bugs will be the root.log and
> build.log from mock. These bugs should start life in a state of
> ASSIGNED, since they are by definition pre-triaged.

It's unfortunate that this is even necessary, maintainers should be reading
your reports already. :-(

That said, I don't have a problem with this procedure.

Kevin Kofler

--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
 
Old 04-01-2008, 03:20 PM
"Jon Ciesla"
 
Default FTBFS Bug Filing and Handling proposal

> Matt Domsch <Matt_Domsch <at> dell.com> writes:
>> In the interest of tracking these failures, new bugs for each failing
>> package will be filed in Bugzilla. These bugs will all block a blocker
>> bug, alias "FTBFS". Included in these bugs will be the root.log and
>> build.log from mock. These bugs should start life in a state of
>> ASSIGNED, since they are by definition pre-triaged.
>
> It's unfortunate that this is even necessary, maintainers should be
> reading
> your reports already. :-(
>
> That said, I don't have a problem with this procedure.

Actually, I read the reports, and would find the filing of bugs to be a
great convenience. Save me the trouble of leaving one email open for a
long time.

+1

> Kevin Kofler
>
> --
> fedora-devel-list mailing list
> fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
> https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
>


--
novus ordo absurdum

--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
 
Old 04-01-2008, 05:16 PM
"Chris Weyl"
 
Default FTBFS Bug Filing and Handling proposal

On Tue, Apr 1, 2008 at 8:20 AM, Jon Ciesla <limb@jcomserv.net> wrote:
>
> > Matt Domsch <Matt_Domsch <at> dell.com> writes:
> >> In the interest of tracking these failures, new bugs for each failing
> >> package will be filed in Bugzilla. These bugs will all block a blocker
> >> bug, alias "FTBFS". Included in these bugs will be the root.log and
> >> build.log from mock. These bugs should start life in a state of
> >> ASSIGNED, since they are by definition pre-triaged.
> >
> > It's unfortunate that this is even necessary, maintainers should be
> > reading
> > your reports already. :-(
> >
> > That said, I don't have a problem with this procedure.
>
> Actually, I read the reports, and would find the filing of bugs to be a
> great convenience. Save me the trouble of leaving one email open for a
> long time.
>
> +1

That, and (while it's a weak excuse), people already get So Much
Email. Filing these as bugs not only puts them in a place where (I
suspect) most people go when looking to fix things, it also allows for
easy co-maintainer access, reporting, etc, etc.

+1

-Chris
--
Chris Weyl
Ex astris, scientia

--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
 
Old 04-01-2008, 05:30 PM
"Jeff Spaleta"
 
Default FTBFS Bug Filing and Handling proposal

On Tue, Apr 1, 2008 at 6:57 AM, Kevin Kofler <kevin.kofler@chello.at> wrote:

It's unfortunate that this is even necessary, maintainers should be reading

your reports already. :-(


I read 'em.* The gcc34 broke a lot.* The packages left on the list with my name associated with them as comaintainer are gcc34 issues still.


-jef
--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
 
Old 04-04-2008, 03:49 PM
Matt Domsch
 
Default FTBFS Bug Filing and Handling proposal

On Tue, Apr 01, 2008 at 08:43:25AM -0500, Matt Domsch wrote:
> A proposal for consideration.
> http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/MattDomsch/FTBFS

Hearing no objections, and several +1's, bugs are starting to be
filed as we speak. Affected packages should get a new bug, plus up to
4 attachments (build.log and root.log for each of i386 and x86_64 if
it failed there). It _should_ send only a single email on the
creation of the bug, but not for the attachments.

If you already have a bug filed which blocks FTBFS, or recursively,
anything that blocks something that blocks FTBFS (such as the gcc 4.3
rebuild blocker), a new bug will not be filed.

Thanks,
Matt

--
Matt Domsch
Linux Technology Strategist, Dell Office of the CTO
linux.dell.com & www.dell.com/linux

--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
 

Thread Tools




All times are GMT. The time now is 08:03 AM.

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