Re: Package downgrades from F34 -> F35 (categorized list included)

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



On Mon, Sep 20, 2021 at 02:43:20PM +0200, Fabio Valentini wrote:
> Hey everybody,
> 
> Yeah, it's *that* time of the year again. I have again compared Fedora
> 34 and Fedora 35 repository contents to check for package downgrades.
> I have categorized all issues in the complete list below. Common
> issues are the same as last few releases:
> 
> - package was built for f35 but not submitted to bodhi after the
> updates-testing activation point
> - package was updated for rawhide and f34, but not for f35
> - package was updated to new version on f34 only, but not f35 or rawhide (?)
> - versioning mishaps (package is not actually a downgrade but looks
> that way to RPM)
> - F35FTBFS issues (will be resolved once packages build successfully)
> - wrong release bumps for stable-only commits (i.e. incremented
> Release number instead of appending .1 after %{?dist})
> - package stuck in koji limbo / weird state because they were built
> during F35 mass branching (may need help from releng / fedora-infra to
> fix those packages)

Happy to help with those. Just file a ticket with the list and what you
need done to them and we will get it sorted. 

> There's also some real issues wrt. to snapshot versioning (i.e.
> switching from a released version to a post-release snapshot, but
> accidentally using the pre-release instead of the post-release
> snapshot versioning rules, etc.), or issues with switching to
> rpmautospec that were not accounted for (i.e. Release number actually
> going *down* when doing the switch, which should have been accounted
> for by supplying a base_release number other than the default 0 to the
> %autorelease macro, etc.).
> 
> As usual, I'm asking: Is it OK for me to fix obvious oversights, such
> as "package was built successfully, it just needs to be submitted to
> bodhi" or "packager obviously only forgot to merge a change to f35 and
> build it there as well"? That should resolve ~55 of the total of ~120
> "real" downgrade issues.

+1. Please fix away. 

kevin

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

_______________________________________________
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
Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
[Index of Archives]     [Fedora Announce]     [Fedora Users]     [Fedora Kernel]     [Fedora Testing]     [Fedora Formulas]     [Fedora PHP Devel]     [Kernel Development]     [Fedora Legacy]     [Fedora Maintainers]     [Fedora Desktop]     [PAM]     [Red Hat Development]     [Gimp]     [Yosemite News]

  Powered by Linux