On Fri, 2019-08-09 at 14:00 +0100, Daniel P. Berrangé wrote: > On Fri, Aug 09, 2019 at 02:28:55PM +0200, Jens-Ulrik Petersen wrote: > > On Fri, Aug 9, 2019 at 9:27 AM Igor Gnatenko < > > ignatenkobrain@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > > Well, it was retired because it did not built since F30 mass rebuild… > > > > > > > I went ahead and built it with the testsuite disabled for now: I suppose > > any Proven Packager could also have done, but yeah normally it should be > > done by the maintainers. > > I admit the ball was dropped on this by various people (myself included), > > and sorry about that. [1] > > The new major upstream release was also a long time coming... > > > > But to me the deeper question is still "why are we proactively breaking the > > distro" in this way with package retirements by non-maintainers? > > > > Sure FTBFS is bad but there is no need to proactively remove core packages > > which are still working okay. > > I really really wish could stop this... causing more busy work and stress. > > When a FTBFS hits, we don't know whether the package is still working > ok or not as there are many possible reasons for the failure. Maybe this is something gating tests could help with ? If a package is FTBFS and has reasonable gating test coverage, you will know it is working. > Filing > the FTBFS BZs informs the maintainer(s) & allows them to investigate, > figure what has gone wrong & decide what changes are needed. Missing > on 2 mass rebuilds means the package is still build with F29 toolchain, > and thus lacking desired improvements Fedora is introducing, so this > has a cost for the rest of the distro. Somewhere there's a balance > between cost for the maintainer in work & cost for the distro in the > package being outdated. > > There was no acknowlegement on the BZ that anyone was actively working > on fixing it in 6 months. This is true for so many of the FTBFS BZs that > get filed. If the packages don't get orphaned after 6+ months of being > ignored, when would they ever be fixed ? > > Having said that, I think in the case of packages which are deps of > so much of the distro, it could have been useful to have a warning of > imminent orphaning on fedora-devel. There was a warning that orphaning > was starting, but no list of affected packages included. Maybe another job for automated tests/CI ? Before dropping a batch of packages, do a test compose without them and postpone the drop if the compose run crashes and burns. Sounds really like something doable which could save a lot of everyones time once in place. > > If a package list was included, *non-maintainers* might have noticed that > gettext was at risk & would massively impact the distro & could have > stepped up to help solve it, where the original maintainer drops the ball. > > Overall though, despite the disruption, orphaning has had the intended > effect of getting the long standing FTBFS problem resolved. > > Regards, > Daniel > -- > > : https://berrange.com -o- https://www.flickr.com/photos/dberrange :| > > : https://libvirt.org -o- https://fstop138.berrange.com :| > > : https://entangle-photo.org -o- https://www.instagram.com/dberrange :| > _______________________________________________ > devel mailing list -- devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > To unsubscribe send an email to devel-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ > List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines > List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx _______________________________________________ devel mailing list -- devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe send an email to devel-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
