Hello,
When we work on rebuilding Python packages with new Python version and when
other provenpackagers rebuild multiple packages at once, I've seen several
problems with packages failing to build from source and/or creating unexpected
breakage in rawhide when built. Usually, some of the following happens:
1. Untested changes
Packager pushes a "simple update" to dist git without checking if it even
builds. It doesn't. Packager has no time to fix this, so they move on for now.
Or they submit a build but never check if it actually built. Provenpackagers who
need to rebuild the package need to figure this out and fix the problem if it is
trivial, or revert the recent commit, when the failure blocks them.
IMHO Provenpackagers should not need to worry about this. Changes should be at
least smoke tested by a mock/scratch build and installation check before
shipping them.
2. Changes that work but are waiting on external factors
Packager pushes a breaking change to dist git (such as a soname bump) before
coordinating the change with the dependent packages, not intending to
immediately build it. A provenpackager rebuilds the package for a different
reason (such as a different soname bump), accidentally shipping the
not-yet-wanted upgrade to rawhide.
IMHO Provenpackagers should not need to worry about this. Commits should land in
dist git only when they are intended to be built (close to) immediately. The
only reasonable exception is when building the pushed changes in a side tag and
even then, packagers should communicate their intentions.
3. Work-in-progress changes
Packager works on a package. They have a work in progress solution to their
problem, but no time to finish. They push a "WIP" commit that either breaks the
build or produces a broken package. The symptoms are similar to (1) or (2). I've
heard packagers saying "but this is rawhide, this is where development happens,
so this is expected" - I disagree.
---
I'd like to explicitly say that neither of this is considered a good behavior.
I'd like to have a policy that more or less says:
1. Packagers MUST NOT push changes that are not considered ready to be built and
shipped at the time of the push. Using Pull Requests (clearly marked as not
ready to be merged) is a better place to present/save changes that are not ready
yet.
2. Packagers SHOULD preemptively check if the changes they intend to push work.
At least checking if the intended change builds and the package installs with it
is strongly recommended. In cases where the check is skipped for time reasons
(e.g. when a testing build takes several hours and the changes are urgent),
packagers SHOULD be ready to fix the build/installation failure in timely manner
after it is discovered by the actual build.
Before I try to word it more carefully I'd like to hear some feedback on this.
What do you think?
--
Miro Hrončok
--
Phone: +420777974800
IRC: mhroncok
_______________________________________________
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
