Dne 14. 08. 19 v 14:23 Miro Hrončok napsal(a): > Hello. > > Recently, a couple hundred packages were retired from rawhide (Fedora > 31 at that time) based on the Fedora Failed to Build From Source > Policy [1]. From various reactions over several threads it seems this > policy is not ideal. This is an attempt to collect feedback and make > the policy better serve Fedora's needs. > > Fedora has a policy for a long time that can be simplified as: > > 1. Mass rebuild for Fedora N happens by releng > 2. Packages that fail to build get open bugzillas by releng > 3. Packages with NEW bugizllas are orphaned after 8 weeks with weekly > reminders by releng I think it would be probably enough to stop here. Orphaned packages gets garbage collected ATM. The step 4 was a bit unexpected for packages with bugs in ASSIGNED state especially. Also the timing with mass rebuild and shifting packages from Rawhide to F31 is unfortunate. I saw a lot of packages, which were reported as FTBFS in BZ, then they were retired but later the bugs were moved from Rawhide to F31, that was strange. Vít > > 4. A week before Fedora N+1 branching any packages which still have > open Fedora N FTBFS bug are retired by releng > > However, 3 or 4 haven't happened since Fedora ~26, because the > automation was not working any more for various reasons I don't > understand. > > The policy was then updated by FESCo to allow anybody to step up and > do 3. manually. > However it needs 2 e-mails to devel directed at the package owners and > that may be understood as a personal attack by some. > So nobody ever did that but me (twice) IIRC (and I got my share of > shame for that). > > Currently, the FTBFS retirement is problematic due to various things: > > 1) Bugzilla spam: Maintainers are spammed weekly by releng, some of > them find that annoying and simply switch the bug to ASSIGNED to make > it stop. > > The problem is, how do we both keep notifying the maintainers that > action is needed and not spam them with stuff that will make them > filter all Fedora e-mails to /dev/null. > > 2) Retirement out of the blue. When releng executes 4., packagers that > stopped the bugzilla spam by setting the bug to ASSIGNED are suddenly > surprised the package was retired. OTOH arguably they made a > deliberate action to stop the notifications. However, most > importantly, any dependent packages were not notified at all, which is > **not fair**. > > This state is broken mostly because there is no automatic orphaning of > packages that have NEW bugzillas and there is no orphaning at all for > packages where the bugzillas are ASSIGNED for months. For the second > bit, everything indicates that packagers are aware of the problem and > will fix the bug in time before 4., but they don't and things blow up. > > 3) Questionable importance of the FTBFS bug. > > Repeatedly, it has been stated by some, the FTBFS bug is not important > and we should not retire packages at all based on the fact that they > "simply" fail to build. I personally don't agree with this for various > reasons, but I can imagine a situation, where it is reasonable to say > so and delay the problem. Obvious argument is: Better to have 1 > package nonbuildable than have 100 packages nonisntallable. So we need > a way to opt-out from the retirement, however simply setting the > bugzilla to ASSIGNED is not it, because we will end up with packages > last built 6 years ago (and I believe this is not what we want). > > > I'm starting this thread to collect the ideas about how to make this > better. > If you see more problems, share them. I promise I'll do my best to > make the policy work better for both Fedora and the people who make > Fedora. > > [1] > https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/fesco/Fails_to_build_from_source_Fails_to_install/ > > _______________________________________________ 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
