On Wed, 2007-07-11 at 07:02 -0400, Jesse Keating wrote: > They stopped because it led to a lot of weird package situations and > mixed results. It was not a very good situation, it only made > you /think/ you were moving on correctly when you really weren't and > should have rebuilt everything with the new version once it was fixed > anyway instead of keeping going. Yes, I understand that there are disadvantages with that approach, just as there are disadvantages with the new approach. Nevertheless, if we're going to make it a frequent occurrence that packages can go missing on secondary architectures, then we are going to have to cope with that _somehow_. For the package in question to just disappear isn't likely to be workable. That's true even if we take the sensible option and require explicit approval from the package owner before shipping a partially-failed build. It's even more true if we do the insane thing and just let the partially-failed builds out into the repository automatically. (Although there's a school of thought that perhaps in that case in fact it becomes less important, because the secondary arch folks might as well not bother with us at all -- they'd not really be any better off than they are at the moment, fending for themselves entirely.) -- dwmw2 -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
