On 2/11/22 21:45, Kevin Kofler via devel wrote: > 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. Hi, Let me chime in as a maintainer of "just a transitive dependency" that was affected by the change. I've been working on Fedora for around a year now and can't tell anything about the old consensus but I want to share my thoughts on the current experience. I've been preparing a bigger update of two widely-used Python libraries - Pygments and Sphinx - for the last three weeks. As thousands of packages depend on them, I did my best to establish potential impact (Copr FTW!), worked to resolve the spotted issues and finally it was good to go. But Rawhide was broken for my builds and I only could wait for it to be resolved. Things happen and I certainly don't want to blame anyone. I just think we could do better and not settle with this state as a normal one. For each such update I prepare there are dozens of broken for unrelated reasons packages - it's already shadowing the real impact of my change on the others and in an ideal world I'd prefer to solve it all *before* the change I introduce lands in Rawhide. When even my tested package fails to build, it sums up to some nontrivial time. Every effort to make Rawhide a bit more stable for maintainers of those "middle-impact" packages will be welcome. Cheers, Karolina _______________________________________________ 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
