On Sat, Aug 10, 2019 at 10:28 PM Kevin Kofler <kevin.kofler@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > Miro Hrončok wrote: > > Because if we don't, people just gonna ignore FTBFS forever. > > And this would be a problem why exactly? > > Packages built for older Fedora releases tend to run on newer Fedora > releases just fine. If the package: > * has no broken dependencies, and > * is not reported as completely broken in Bugzilla, > it should be assumed to be working by default. > > If you encounter a package that does not actually work, it is your job as a > user to report it. This can happen independently of whether the package > still compiles or not. It can even still be broken after a successful > rebuild. > > So why are we wasting packagers' time on fixing FTBFS issues (which are > typically NOT caused by their package, but by changes in dependencies such > as your python-unversioned-command change, or such as yet another > incompatible change in GCC for the sake of compliance with some obscure > subparagraph of a language standard, etc.) when not actually needed? I > actually NEED to fix the FTBFS if the package has broken dependencies or if > I need to make some other change to it. Otherwise, the FTBFS fix is just > churn that Fedora forces me to waste my time on. Hi, I understand where you are coming from, but I still disagree. I think there has been an unfair hostility towards Miro on this topic. Your package suddenly FTBFS because of dependencies or system-wide changes but the latest package build is still functional? I agree that there is no urgency to fix this, but I disagree that status quo is fine X releases later. For starters may miss out on system wide changes (and whether someone agrees with proposed changes is not the question) and in the case you made about bug reports that mandate action from the maintainer, not taking care of FTBFS timely means that once shit hits the fan you have to both solve the FTBFS situation and the user-facing bug report. So yes, it sucks when someone's package fails because someone else screwed up by not coordinating an soname bump or whatever, but it doesn't mean that we can keep the latest successful build around and let the source repository bit-rot forever because there are no bug reports. Now there's certainly room for improvement, but I don't have a solution to offer and hammering Miro because he's been (very) active lately retiring FTBFS or orphan packages (as per the normal process) is helping. Here we had an acknowledgement from a couple maintainers and someone who stepped in to help, a very positive outcome. Dridi _______________________________________________ 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
