On Tue, Apr 17, 2007 at 10:14:15AM +0200, Thorsten Leemhuis wrote:
> On 17.04.2007 09:42, Axel Thimm wrote:
> >On Tue, Apr 17, 2007 at 08:22:44AM +0200, Thorsten Leemhuis wrote:
> >>On 17.04.2007 07:48, Dave Jones wrote:
> >>>On Tue, Apr 17, 2007 at 06:58:52AM +0200, Thorsten Leemhuis wrote:
> >>>>> 1. In the future we should consider a mass rebuild of all packages
> >>>>>around, but no later than test2
> >>>Taking a look at the packages in my f7 mirror, I spot 52 packages
> >>>that still have a .fc6 tag, none of which look particularly
> >>>"omg, we have to rebuild this". There are also 713 with no %{dist} tag
> >>>which include some which we definitly have rebuilt, so it's harder
> >>>to figure out which of those got updated and which didn't.
> >>Some numbers:
> >>$ echo $((4073-1206))
> >>2867
> >>IOW: 1206 out of 4073 source packages were not rebuild in devel (both
> >>core and extras) between release of FC6 and now.
> >
> >But that's by choice and now what the usual Fedora policy was until
> >now.
>
> There is no "policy" afaik. The maintainer simply decided what to do if
> no mass-rebuild was announced. There were for example mass rebuilds
> performed in FC6 and FE6.
Well, let's not play with wording, the numbers speak for themselves:
In the history of Fedora until F7 both FC and FE did effectively full
rebuilds.
> >Here is the historical data, that shows that we've been doing
> >effectively full rebuilds ever until now.
> On Tue, Apr 10, 2007 at 03:33:29PM +0200, Axel Thimm wrote:
> > Here are the numbers of the amount of Core packages rebuilt per
> > release. FC1 gets 100% because I don't have the RHL9 packages handy,
> > but anyway (for > 99% I added as many digits as neccessary to show
> > what wasn't rebuilt):
> >
> > 1 100%
> > 2 99.7%
> > 3 100%
> > 4 96.6%
> > 5 99.991%
> > 6 95%
> > 7 80%
> >
> > So as you see, up to F7 Core had really been effectively rebuilt on
> > each release with FC4 and FC5 being the most "sloppy" ones leaving
> > 3.4% and 5% resp. not rebuilt. With F7 Core drops down to 80%
> > rebuild
> > rate. This *is* a new release model.
>
> Just a heads up for the readers (as it's not obvious in the first
> sight): The data from Axel is for Core only afaics, my data included Extras.
Well, I can include Extras, too, the data above was from a mail to
Jesse when it was about Core. For Extras the numbers are far more
striking, here is a common table including the FC data:
FC FE
1 100% -
2 99.7% -
3 100% 100%
4 96.6% 99.4%
5 99.991% 99.0%
6 95% 99.4%
7 80% 62%
So Extras was even closer to a complete rebuilds, leaving out 0.6% to
1% of packages at most until FC6 inclusive.
Since FE has more packages the merged full repo will look more like
FE's rebuild rates. But since the CD/DVD spins are made mostly out of
former Core bits the actual rate of bugs found due to non-rebuilds
will be closer to FC's. That's a bit comforting, since FC has seen
some more rebuilds.
We are on new territory with F7, both on the FC and FE side. Let's
prey for the best.
--
Axel.Thimm at ATrpms.net
Attachment:
pgpndUNBtVUMl.pgp
Description: PGP signature
-- Fedora-maintainers mailing list Fedora-maintainers@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-maintainers
-- Fedora-maintainers-readonly mailing list Fedora-maintainers-readonly@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-maintainers-readonly
