On Wed, 2007-05-30 at 10:43 -0400, Jesse Keating wrote: > On Wednesday 30 May 2007 10:33:36 David Woodhouse wrote: > > I don't think anyone suggested that you must delay the security fix > > while someone debugs and fixes a compiler problem like that (although > > usually if it's a security fix it'll be a minimal patch, and any > > compiler bug you now trigger should be fairly easy to work around). > > It's not often the new patch that triggers it. It's say a build was done in > Jan that worked across the arches. Then gcc was updated in Feb, then May, > and now in June we have to do a security bump for the build, only now a new > gcc is used that is completely unable to build the package for the off > arches, something that built just fine, only a minimal patch being added. > This has happened in the past, and likely to happen again in the future. Yeah. The periodic rebuilds which mdomsch does should help with that. I must get them going on PPC some time soon. > > The only delay you currently have is the time it takes to add the > > ExcludeArch: to the specfile and file the ExcludeArch bug -- and then > > for the build system to rebuild the package itself. You can even find > > the test case and file the compiler bug (on which your ExcludeArch bug > > will depend) _after_ you've built the new package with the ExcludeArch. > > > > Has that _really_ been so much of a problem for you? > > On a build that takes 6~8 hours to complete? Yes. There aren't many of those, thankfully. > Yes. Adding delays in for an arch that is potentially 1% of our userbase is > just insane. And the number of cases where the package takes 6-8 hours to build _and_ has an arch-specific bug which should lead to an ExcludeArch _and_ we're in a desperate hurry to release it.... you think that's more than 1%? Seems rather a strange case to optimise for, to me. Allowing partially-failed builds to make it through into the repo without user intervention is insane. Failures should _always_ be investigated. Sometimes when I've seen failures on just one arch, it's actually been a randomly-triggered generic bug. The package-monkey approach of adding ExcludeArch: and rebuilding will sometimes lead to it showing up in a different arch, which built before. If you _really_ want to optimise for the exceedingly rare case of a real arch-specific bug in a huge package which we're _also_ in a desperate hurry to release within a matter of hours, then at least make it so that the ExcludeArch bug can be filed retrospectively in order to allow the build to 'commit'. Don't let it happen automatically. -- dwmw2 -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
