On 2025-01-16 07:22, Siddhesh Poyarekar wrote:
On 2025-01-15 20:46, Fabio Valentini wrote:
TBH we haven't had enough time since upstream gcc stage 1 close to
finish going through all the failures[1]. If only we had a week
or two
more for the mass rebuild; it got delayed by a couple of weeks last
year
and a similar delay would have helped this year too.
This might be a stupid question ... but if it would have helped you,
then why wasn't a delay requested?
I had it in my TODO list to file a Fesco ticket for *future* even
numbered Fedora, but I suppose I could have requested an additional week
or so to file these issues even for F42. Most of the packages succeeded
so I figured we could use the stabilization period following the rebuild
(as we would do in F39 and earlier) to help iron out the failures that
we couldn't cover during the prebuild and avoid a schedule slippage.
I've filed this Fesco issue for future even numbered Fedora releases:
https://pagure.io/fesco/issue/3331
Sid
--
_______________________________________________
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
