On Tue, Dec 7, 2010 at 8:12 PM, Matt Domsch <Matt_Domsch@xxxxxxxx> wrote: >> Note that I am not advocating keeping these packages unfixed. I wanted >> to point out that things might turn ugly and might even trigger an >> avalanche when you remove the FTBFS packages from the repo and then >> the packages that depend on them will start to cry. > > skvidal pointed out repoquery --tree-whatrequires can help us find the > whole affected set of packages. ÂI'm looking at generating that list > now. ÂIf we include all ~550 orphan packages in the run, plus the ~100 > FTBFS packages, plus all packages that these depend on, I'm sure it'll > wind up being a long list. ÂAll the more reason to look _now_, and not > 2 days before Alpha compose. Not to over burden you with the FTBFS effort. But to help me best prioritize my own time it would be great if you configure out a way for me quickly find the FTBFS packages in the dep chain for the packages I already co-maintain. The current representative governing body of voices in my head are not primarily an altruistic group. To get their resource allocation approval it would help immensely if I could show them the specific FTBFS packages that have a direct impact on my current workload. -jef -- devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
