Hi, On 1/27/25 23:16, Siddhesh Poyarekar wrote:
Like Fabio mentioned, we already do this and tend to have that information but don't communicate until we have determined that it is relevant and as it happened this time around, it was too late. The main reason why we hold on to the information is that we want to avoid bothering package maintainers until we have understood the failures to be due to, e.g. new diagnostics but maybe it's better to communicate earlier and it be punted back to gcc than to wait too long to communicate the issue.
The approach of the early bug filing has been beneficial to Python rebuilds. Some of the bug reports will always turn out moot, but some other will point back at CPython and uncover its bugs. We aim to open the relevant bug tickets as soon as possible to get things going and have more people on board. For the price of a slightly increased noise-to-signal ratio (which could be annoying to some -- although I'm happy to say that I haven't experienced any signals of discontent from Fedora package maintainers (Thanks, folks!)), we get more eyes on the issues and faster feedback.
Regarding the gcc prebuild: I'd personally prefer to deal with a report that may end up redirected to the gcc team or closed as not a bug weeks in advance than being surprised by the build failure when an update lands in Rawhide.
The proposal for the checkpoint makes sence to me. 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, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue
