On Fri, 2011-05-06 at 19:20 -0400, Tom Lane wrote: > Adam Williamson <awilliam@xxxxxxxxxx> writes: > > On Fri, 2011-05-06 at 10:59 -0400, Tom Lane wrote: > >> Well, if they think this is their beta test period, it still merits > >> asking why the heck this type of change is going in now. I agree with > >> Dave that this looks like development material, not near-release bug > >> fixing. It's particularly bad that they are making what amount to API > >> changes long after all dependent packages are frozen. Who knows how > >> many F15 packages are now going to ship in a FTBFS state? > > > [snip] > > In fact, you can see this has already happened: > > https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/glibc-2.13.90-11 > > has -6 karma at present. When it hit -3, it got unpushed. Of course, > > this reminds us of a problem in Bodhi where an update's karma isn't > > reset to 0 when it's edited, because the glibc devs sent out a fixed > > build - 11 - but it's still at -6 karma. Still, the process works! > > Well, just for the record, that change doesn't really address my > complaint. It fixes the problem that "#include <netdb.h>" fails, > but it hasn't done anything for the problem that packages that actually > need RPC functionality will now FTBFS for lack of a BuildRequires on > libtirpc, if not need actual source patches (maybe they were assuming > netdb.h would pull in rpc/netdb.h, for instance). And if they aren't > recompiled, they'll most likely fail to run for lack of the right .so > dependencies. I think it's also fair to wonder whether the new RPC > library is an *exact* functional substitute for the code that used to be > embedded in glibc. I guess we'll be finding that out in the field, > because for darn sure it's too late for any meaningful testing of > dependent packages to be happening for F15. > > I don't (think I) own any packages that depend on RPC functionality, > so it's no skin off my nose if this goes through. But the folks who > do own or use such packages ought to be pretty concerned. sounds like a perfectly good reason to file negative karma on the 'revised' update, then. Really - if you think the update is causing significant problems, file negative karma, raise a stink about it. We don't have to accept the update. -- Adam Williamson Fedora QA Community Monkey IRC: adamw | Fedora Talk: adamwill AT fedoraproject DOT org http://www.happyassassin.net -- devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
