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 05-28-2008, 08:51 PM
Matt Domsch
 
Default Plan for tomorrows (20080529) FESCO meeting: FTBFS bugs

On Wed, May 28, 2008 at 10:28:00AM -0400, Brian Pepple wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> Please find below the list of topics that are likely to come up in the
> next FESCo meeting that is scheduled for tomorrow, Thursday at 17:00 UTC
> in #fedora-meeting on irc.freenode.org:
>
> /topic FESCo meeting --
> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Extras/Schedule/SponsorResponsibilityPolicy -- bpepple
>
> topic FESCO-Meeting -- FESCo Responsibilities/Role -- all
>
> /topic FESCo meeting -- Free discussion around Fedora
>
> You want something to be discussed? Send a note to the list in reply to
> this mail and I'll add it to the schedule. You can also propose topics
> in the meeting while it is in the "Free discussion around Fedora" phase.


One thing that came up in today's QA meeting was a desire to remove
packages from the repository that "Fail To Build From Source" [1] for
several months leading up to a Beta release when there is no
resolution in sight. I'm currently doing a rawhide rebuild, and
expect on the order of 350 packages currently in rawhide to fail to
rebuild. There are at least 144 which are known to not rebuild, which
have bugs filed blocking the FTBFS bug [2] (or one of its decendants).
I'll file additional bugs later this week based on my rawhide run.

There are at least these many in rawhide today with "old" dist tags
which have failed for me in the past week:

.fc6: 12

gdmap-0.7.5-6.fc6.src.rpm
aiksaurus-1.2.1-15.fc6.src.rpm
ht2html-2.0-5.fc6.src.rpm
lineak-defaultplugin-0.9-2.fc6.src.rpm
lineak-xosdplugin-0.9-2.fc6.src.rpm
lineakd-0.9-5.fc6.src.rpm
oooqs2-1.0-3.fc6.src.rpm
orpie-1.4.3-5.fc6.src.rpm
qa-assistant-0.4.90.5-2.fc6.src.rpm
scim-skk-0.5.2-8.fc6.src.rpm
soundtracker-0.6.8-2.fc6.src.rpm

.fc7: 27

svnmailer-1.0.8-3.fc7.src.rpm
conexusmm-0.5.0-3.fc7.src.rpm
moto4lin-0.3-6.fc7.src.rpm
SOAPpy-0.11.6-6.fc7.src.rpm
fluxstyle-1.0.1-2.fc7.src.rpm
fonttools-2.0-0.11.20060223cvs.fc7.src.rpm
fontypython-0.2.0-6.fc7.src.rpm
gl-117-1.3.2-4.fc7.src.rpm
gstm-1.2-6.fc7.src.rpm
gtk-sharp-1.0.10-12.fc7.src.rpm
gtksourceview-sharp-2.0-25.fc7.src.rpm
junitperf-1.9.1-2jpp.1.fc7.src.rpm
kphotobymail-0.4.1-1.fc7.src.rpm
mbuffer-20070502-1.fc7.src.rpm
pcmanx-gtk2-0.3.5-9.336svn.fc7.src.rpm
pekwm-0.1.5-5.fc7.src.rpm
plague-0.4.4.1-4.fc7.src.rpm
python-durus-3.5-3.fc7.src.rpm
python-pydns-2.3.0-5.fc7.src.rpm
python-simpletal-4.1-5.fc7.src.rpm
python-tpg-3.1.0-4.fc7.src.rpm
python-urljr-1.0.1-1.fc7.src.rpm
pyzor-0.4.0-11.fc7.src.rpm
qps-1.9.19-0.2.b.fc7.src.rpm
ruby-bdb-0.6.0-1.fc7.src.rpm
rudeconfig-5.0.5-1.fc7.src.rpm
sblim-wbemcli-1.5.1-5.fc7.src.rpm

(and of course there are packages with no dist tag which fail too) so
the number of packages we'd consider here isn't huge, but is nonzero.

Please consider adopting a policy regarding packages which continue to
fail to build from source for a given distribution. These packages
need attention, if only because we have disabled F6 buildroots which
would be necessary to build and fix a bug in such a package package in
the F9 release. I agree with Will Woods' suggestion (pardon if I
mis-attribute) that such cutoff point should be the Beta cut of the
next version of the release.



[1] http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/FTBFS
[2] FTBFS bug: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=440169

--
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 05-28-2008, 11:13 PM
Brian Pepple
 
Default Plan for tomorrows (20080529) FESCO meeting: FTBFS bugs

On Wed, 2008-05-28 at 15:51 -0500, Matt Domsch wrote:
> One thing that came up in today's QA meeting was a desire to remove
> packages from the repository that "Fail To Build From Source" [1] for
> several months leading up to a Beta release when there is no
> resolution in sight. I'm currently doing a rawhide rebuild, and
> expect on the order of 350 packages currently in rawhide to fail to
> rebuild. There are at least 144 which are known to not rebuild, which
> have bugs filed blocking the FTBFS bug [2] (or one of its decendants).
> I'll file additional bugs later this week based on my rawhide run.

<snip>

> Please consider adopting a policy regarding packages which continue to
> fail to build from source for a given distribution. These packages
> need attention, if only because we have disabled F6 buildroots which
> would be necessary to build and fix a bug in such a package package in
> the F9 release. I agree with Will Woods' suggestion (pardon if I
> mis-attribute) that such cutoff point should be the Beta cut of the
> next version of the release.

Seem reasonable to me. I'll add it to the schedule for tomorrow.

Thanks,
/B
--
Brian Pepple <bpepple@fedoraproject.org>

http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/BrianPepple
gpg --keyserver pgp.mit.edu --recv-keys 810CC15E
BD5E 6F9E 8688 E668 8F5B CBDE 326A E936 810C C15E
--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
 
Old 05-29-2008, 07:38 AM
Patrice Dumas
 
Default Plan for tomorrows (20080529) FESCO meeting: FTBFS bugs

On Wed, May 28, 2008 at 03:51:38PM -0500, Matt Domsch wrote:
>
> Please consider adopting a policy regarding packages which continue to
> fail to build from source for a given distribution. These packages
> need attention, if only because we have disabled F6 buildroots which
> would be necessary to build and fix a bug in such a package package in
> the F9 release. I agree with Will Woods' suggestion (pardon if I
> mis-attribute) that such cutoff point should be the Beta cut of the
> next version of the release.

I own some packages that don't rebuild (in F-9), I was waiting for an
upstream release that didn't came (for libnc-dap, though there was a
release of libdap). I'd prefer if they were kept. I'll take the time to
patch them to rebuild, but I'd prefer doing it only if needed.

--
Pat

--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
 
Old 05-29-2008, 02:21 PM
Jesse Keating
 
Default Plan for tomorrows (20080529) FESCO meeting: FTBFS bugs

On Wed, 2008-05-28 at 15:51 -0500, Matt Domsch wrote:
> (and of course there are packages with no dist tag which fail too) so
> the number of packages we'd consider here isn't huge, but is nonzero.
>
> Please consider adopting a policy regarding packages which continue to
> fail to build from source for a given distribution. These packages
> need attention, if only because we have disabled F6 buildroots which
> would be necessary to build and fix a bug in such a package package in
> the F9 release. I agree with Will Woods' suggestion (pardon if I
> mis-attribute) that such cutoff point should be the Beta cut of the
> next version of the release.

For me, Beta is too late. I'd rather see them go post-alpha, like
immediately post-alpha.

Since these all have ftbfs bugs filed, can't we use those bugs as the
basis of finding non-responsive maintainers, and initiate the orphan
process on these packages, which would get sweeped up in that same
post-alpha, pre-beta timeframe?

--
Jesse Keating
Fedora -- Freedom˛ is a feature!
--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@redhat.com
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
 
Old 05-29-2008, 02:22 PM
Jesse Keating
 
Default Plan for tomorrows (20080529) FESCO meeting: FTBFS bugs

On Thu, 2008-05-29 at 09:38 +0200, Patrice Dumas wrote:
>
> I own some packages that don't rebuild (in F-9), I was waiting for an
> upstream release that didn't came (for libnc-dap, though there was a
> release of libdap). I'd prefer if they were kept. I'll take the time to
> patch them to rebuild, but I'd prefer doing it only if needed.

This is why I want to use the non-responsive maintainer policy. If
you've responded in the bug you wouldn't be triggered as non-responsive.
We'd still have to figure out some way to get your build going, but we
wouldn't be waiting on a black hole.

--
Jesse Keating
Fedora -- Freedom˛ is a feature!
--
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 10:51 AM.

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