> There are currently two technical issues that require rebuilding of > packages. > > 1) a bad binutils was used in buildroots for almost two months that > caused all ppc32 binaries to need execmem. SELinux rightfully denies > this. We need to rebuild the effected packages so that ppc and SELinux > work again. > > 2) build-id (http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Releases/FeatureBuildId) > Any binary package with a debuginfo package that hasn't been built > after the good build-id stuff landed needs to be rebuilt so that it has > a build-id. > > The unique combination of these two has led to a list of 2845 packages > that will need to be rebuilt. > (http://jkeating.fedorapeople.org/really-need-to-rebuild) That's 598 > packages that need rebuilding for the ppc32 issue, and 2831 that need > building due to the build-id issue (there is obviously some crossover). > > At the absolute minimum we need the ppc32 builds done before Test2, > which has a freeze date in one week. We'd /like/ to have them all done > as build-id is an important feature of Fedora 8 and Test2 is the > Feature Freeze and if you're building 600 packages, might as well build > 3K. > > A less technical but a nonetheless important rebuild issue is correct > package licensing. We have a goal to have all our packages with (a) > correct License(s) tag in the spec file, and a build with that correct > tag. I do not have the numbers currently as to how many still need > updating, it is not a small number. Also important to note is that for > the above technical issues no changes are needed in the package beyond > a release bump and a build. But for the license tag issue there is a > significant number of packages that still have the invalid license and > need auditing and changing. > > Given that with just the fully technical issues we're at just a bit > over 1/2 the package set for Fedora we've got some hard choices to > make. Obviously we'd like to rely upon the maintainers to rebuild > their packages, however with just a week to accomplish this that may be > nearly impossible. It's also a rather large number of packages to try > and automate over, with a large degree of different $release values to > try and automatically bump (especially without resorting to just > plonking a ".1" to the end of everything which is against the > guidelines). There is also a rather large list of things that failed > to rebuild during Matt Domsch's last rebuild test, and I don't know how > many of those have been fixed. That can cause some delays as well. > > So I ask you, great Fedora Community, how do we want to handle this > situation? I'm open for suggestions, but we should decide something > before the end of the day given our time constraints. If I've updated my license tags already, I just need to rebuild, and no bump, correct? And only in devel? > I'm going to continue working on these lists and keeping them updated, > perhaps getting a mapping of maintainer to package, or whatever format > the community finds useful. > > -- > Jesse Keating > Fedora -- All my bits are free, are yours? > -- > fedora-devel-list mailing list > fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx > https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list -- novus ordo absurdum -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
