On 21.08.2007 15:54, Jesse Keating wrote: > [...] > 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). A sorting by owner would have made hunting for packagers way more easier (especially if the number of packages owned is bigger then three or something like that). > 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). Is adding a ".1" that bad after a warning period which allows the maintainers to do it in better ways? > 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. - Don't slip FC8T2 for this - tell packagers to rebuild their packages - for all packages not rebuild or queued by <insert time> (let's say Friday morning maybe?) add a ".1" to release and let a script kick the rebuilds - create and run a small script that pokes maintainers by mail which didn't update the license tags yet - for all packages which failed rebuild or which license tag was still not updated in three weeks from now find a solution (nijas?) CU knurd -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
