Dne 28. 01. 25 v 11:33 Daniel P. Berrangé napsal(a):
On Tue, Jan 28, 2025 at 11:19:02AM +0100, Vít Ondruch wrote:I think we should stop and think again why we do mass rebuilds and why we do them prior release. "The goal is to rebuild every single Fedora package, regardless of content, before the Fedora 41 Change Deadline." [1] is not very elaborated and I was not able to find anything better. These are my thoughts why we do mass rebuild: 1) One user visible benefit is having consistent dist tag. 2) Global performance optimizations or generally global configuration. Ok I got that, but there are probably better times to do some minimass rebuild on more targeted package set. 3) We also want to make sure that everything still builds (despite having Koschei). This is good goal. But still, our users don't generally care about this.I might say they don't realize they should care. Our users expect us to be able to deliver updates to stable Fedora releases to fix plain bugs and/or security flaws in a timely manner.
Agree here.
If we don't do a mass rebuild, then the first we might find out about a FTBFS is when we need to issue an update in stable Fedora. By having a mass rebuild, we can identify FTBFS issues sooner, and thus when we need to deliver updates, we're more confident that we wouldn't be delayed by undiscovered FTBFS issues suddenly appearing. When things inevitable FTBFS, we have to take the pain of fixing it sooner or later. The only question is when we'll suffer IME, taking the pain sooner almost always reduces the cost of fixing problems.
I also agree with this. But jut knowing about FTBFS does not mean if will get fixed. Doing mass rebuild in other time will IMHO provide likely same information.
Speaking of GCC, the minimass rebuild would still likely be worth of it 🤷
eg if we only mass rebuild just after branching, then we've doubled the number of branches where any fix needs to be made (rawhide & just branched stable), thus increasing our workload.
This is debatable. Realistically, failure due to GCC does not need to be fixed everywhere until really needed. It is good to have it fixed in Rawhide to be ready for backport when needed.
And historically, the most painful part for me was having a fix held off somewhere, because of freeze. Not the need to fix it in multiple branches.
Vít
Attachment:
OpenPGP_signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital 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
