On Sunday 24 June 2007 21:14:32 n0dalus wrote: > Hi all, > > On my rawhide system, I noticed that there are a lot of packages with > inconsistent tags. There are (numbers in brackets are for packages > built in the past 14 days): > - 369 (216) packages with fc8 in the release tag (shouldn't we be using > f8?) No, fedora collection 8. > - 354 (1) packages with fc7 in the release tag We still inherit many Fedora 7 builds. Unless there is a good technical reason to rebuild them we don't waste resources in rebuilding just for a cosmetic package version. > - 205 (27) packages with no fedora version in the release tag dist tag is optional. In many cases it is preferred to /not/ have one, like data files that won't change from release to release. No sense in rebuilding them all the time, just update the oldest supported release first, and all the newer collections will inherit it. > - 42 (0) packages with fc6 in the release tag Again, we still inherit some packages all the way back to fc6. If there is significant technical reason to rebuild then they would be, but cosmetics is not a reason. > - 465 (0) packages with Vendor: Red Hat, Inc Built internally as part of "Core" > - 431 (244) packages with Vendor: Fedora Project Built with Koji and/or Plague IIRC > - 74 (0) packages with Vendor: Koji Built with Koji for a short period of time where we lost the Vendor definitions. Not a reason to rebuild, they'll pick up the new Vendor tag next time they're built for a real reason. > - 465 (0) packages with Packager: Red Hat, Inc. > <http://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla> > - 363 (244) packages with Packager: Fedora Project > - 74 (0) packages with Packager: Koji > - 68 (0) packages with Packager: Fedora Project > <http://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla> See above response, same thing going on here. > > - 437 (244) packages with Distribution: Unknown This may be the only actual problem I see here. Perhaps we lost Distribution definition in our current koji setup. I'll investigate. > - 369 (0) packages with Distribution: Red Hat (FC-7) > - 90 (0) packages with Distribution: Red Hat (FC-6) > - 68 (0) packages with Distribution: Fedora Extras > - 6 (0) packages with Distribution: (none) > > - 759 (243) packages with Signature: (none) > - 81 (0) packages with Signature: fd372689897da07a (Red Hat Beta?) > - 72 (1) packages with Signature: b44269d04f2a6fd2 (Fedora?) > - 58 (0) packages with Signature: 82ed95041ac70ce6 (Extras?) Inheritance once again, and we don't automatically sign Rawhide builds at this time. > Obviously a lot of these packages haven't gone through the build > system of late, but even the ones that have still show a few > inconsistencies. Is this something that is being worked on? I only saw one issue above that needs any attention, and that's the Distribution tag. -- Jesse Keating Release Engineer: Fedora
Attachment:
pgpadC3ynYylx.pgp
Description: PGP signature
-- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
