Artur Frenszek-Iwicki wrote: > With the order-of-requirements approach, if a higher-tier package > fails to build, you've got two options: > > 1) Rebuild the lower-tier packages regardless, knowing that they > will either fail, or will need need to be rebuilt a second time > once the higher-tier package gets fixed. > > 2) Stop and do not rebuild the lower-tier packages. > > The issue with approach 1) is waste of computing resources. That same waste happens with the current mass rebuild approach. Building such packages in advance, and then building them again as part of the mass rebuild, wastes more. > The issue with approach 2) is that you'd need to store a list of > not-rebuilt packages and hunt them down relentlessly to ensure > that they don't skip the mass rebuild. > > I suppose that the second approach could be automated somehow; > grab the NVR before the mass rebuild, file a bugzilla ticket, > keep on pestering the maintainer until a build with higher NVR > appears. That seems to be done already. See the periodic "List of long term FTBFS packages to be retired" posts. Björn Persson
Attachment:
pgpFZDTfFDWgZ.pgp
Description: OpenPGP digital signatur
-- _______________________________________________ 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
