On Sun, Jul 10, 2011 at 04:43:30PM +0100, Matthew Garrett wrote: > On Sat, Jul 09, 2011 at 11:45:33PM -0400, Jon Masters wrote: > > > * Fedora should (IMO) institute mandatory mass rebuilds. Either every > > cycle, or every other cycle. I've briefly discussed with Dennis. > > Bootstrapping (and similar activities) are far easier with a clean set > > of deps, which is the case for F15. It should always be the case that we > > know everything builds and self-hosts through a mass rebuild per cycle. > > This has been raised with FESCO in the past, and I don't think there's > any fudnamental disagreement on it. But scheduling one mass rebuild per > cycle doesn't prevent us ending up in a broken state unless we do it > right at the end of the cycle, and right now that's problematic in terms > of release process - rebuilding everything we've just QAed is an > excellent way to introduce subtle breakage. So it really needs to be an > out-of-archive verification rather than one that's targetted at the > release, and we need the resources and manpower to handle it. Alternately, we could take a lesson from our compatriots at openSUSE. Their openSUSE Build Service throws a combination of automated intelligence and hardware at the problem. Given the package dependency tree, if package B BuildRequires package A, then every time A gets rebuilt, B is also bumped and rebuilt. This causes build breakage to get caught fairly early in the process (rather than via an asynchronous out-of-tree process), and the resulting packages are available in their equivalent of the rawhide tree for test and use. -- Matt Domsch Technology Strategist Dell | Office of the CTO -- devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
