Re: List of long term FTBFS packages to be retired in February​

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

 



On Thu, Jan 26, 2023 at 10:21:27AM +0100, Miro Hrončok wrote:
> On 26. 01. 23 4:51, Yaakov Selkowitz wrote:
> > On Tue, 2023-01-24 at 15:55 +0100, Miro Hrončok wrote:
> > > Based on the current fail to build from source policy, the following
> > > packages
> > > should be retired from Fedora 38 approximately one week before branching.
> > > 
> > > 5 weekly reminders are required, hence the retirement will happen
> > > approximately in 2 weeks, i.e. around 2023-02-08.
> > > Since this is unfortunately after the branching,
> > > packages will be retired on rawhide and f38.
> > > 
> > > Policy:
> > > https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/fesco/Fails_to_build_from_source_Fails_to_install/
> > 
> > Why isn't automatic orphaning at the beginning of this countdown part of this
> > policy, so that others have the chance to take and fix the package?  If
> > someone (other than the maintainer, who should already be well aware) were to
> > just now notice that one of these packages were about to be retired, there
> > isn't really enough time to go through the BZ route to get it orphaned first.
> 
> That is a good question.
> 
> The original idea is that FTBFS packages are orphaned when the maintainers
> don't respond to the FTBFS bugzillas. But many do set the bugzillas to
> ASSIGNED to avoid the orphaning or sometimes the FTBFS bugzillas are closed
> in mistake or not opened at all.

Well, if it's ASSIGNED, you don't want to orphan it, the maintainer is
working on it right?

> I suppose orphaning the packages first would make perfect sense, but the
> devil is in the details. I suppose packagers might feel bad if suddenly
> "their" packages are orphaned without any reminder or warning of some sort.

Yeah, I think that would be quite bad. 

> So we would need to modify the policy from:
> 
> 1. warn
> 2. warn
> 3. warn
> 4. warn
> 5. warn
> 6. retire
> 
> To something like:
> 
> 1. warn
> 2. warn
> 3. warn
> 4. orphan
> 5. warn
> 6. warn
> 7. warn
> 8. retire
> 
> And make the process much longer. And we would need to figure out what to do
> if the package is taken (unorphaned) in between 4. and 8. without being
> fixed.

I suppose FTBFS is less urgent and FTI bugs... perhaps they should be
different in this process?

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, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue

[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