Miro Hrončok wrote: > It was actually announced: > > https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx/thread/FV53ADNJB5STFN3YAEEXEVHMIA6DMXCN/ > > But for reasons I don't understand, it was pushed to rawhide without using > a side tag and without doing rebuilds :( > > I agree that untagging this is the best option now, it breaks hundreds of > packages both on runtime and buildtime. As a comaintainer of at least 2 of the affected packages (kdelibs3 and kdelibs 4), I must say I do not really understand why this is such a big deal. 18 packages would have needed to be rebuilt in Rawhide. "Hundreds of packages" is just with transitive dependencies that do not all need to be rebuilt. The untagging just makes us lose time because we can not rebuild the packages directly in Rawhide now. The fact that we got automatically filed FTI bugs within hours is also absurd. It would be easiest to just have a provenpackager rebuild the packages and not bother the maintainers at all (nor untag the package). Filing a bug makes sense only if an FTI persists for more than a week at the very least. Transient breakage in Rawhide is perfectly normal. We have always worked that way in Rawhide: if a soname got bumped, just rebuild the reverse dependencies and move on. It worked without any issues. So I do not see why this is suddenly no longer allowed. Kevin Kofler _______________________________________________ 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
