On Tue, 21 Aug 2007 15:42:54 +0100 "Christopher Brown" <snecklifter@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On 21/08/07, Jesse Keating <jkeating@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > > 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. > > > > 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. > > > How does this sound? Way too complicated. > 1. Slip T2 by one week. There's no need for that yet. > 2. ping fedora-devel-announce that conditions that $PACKAGE needs rebuilding > in two weeks Too many packages to do that individually. > 3. after one week ACL's are opened to people in 4. in a dirty great package > license check and rebuild free-for-all (mention this in 2.) > 4. For a group of any Fedorites who show interest add their names to all > ACLs on understanding that only License tag and rebuild can occur. Group 4 is rel-eng. There's no need to open any additional ACLs. josh -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
