>>>>> "Michael" == Michael Schwendt <bugs.michael@xxxxxxx> writes: Michael> As discussed briefly in the last meeting of FESCO, there are Michael> a few open questions with regard to running a script that Michael> does automated checking of broken dependencies in Fedora Michael> Extras: Michael> * How often to run it? Michael> Daily? After every push of new builds for Fedora Extras? If I think it would be most usefull after each push of new builds. Michael> Rawhide breaks something how do we become aware of that in Michael> time? That is, do we know exactly when new packages are Michael> pushed in Rawhide so the script would not run before that? Michael> Does it matter? The next run a day later would catch broken Michael> deps. Do we, at Fedora Extras, have big interest in knowing Michael> quickly when changes in Rawhide break anything in Extras? Michael> Reports of broken packages are not worthwhile if rebuilds or Michael> fixes won't happen until packagers track and "support" Michael> Rawhide or unless a special team at Fedora Extras takes over Michael> doing the rebuilds for devel. Michael> * Whether to mail a summary of all broken dependencies to Michael> fedora-extras-list? I think we should. This would allow people to comment and see how the list of packages as a whole are doing. Michael> So far, during the few public test-runs, a packager received Michael> a summary of all broken dependencies for all his broken Michael> packages in a single mail. What format should a complete Michael> summary, which is posted to fedora-extras-list, have, so it Michael> would be useful and readable? Maybe Michael> package name version repository e-mail or srcrpm name Michael> repository e-mail or package name version Michael> sorted by name or sorted by e-mail and grouped by arch? With Michael> the full summary at the bottom? Ideas? The complete list of How about listed twice: First set is: package name version repository e-mail and then sorted again: email package name version repository So that maintainers could easily spot all their packages? Michael> broken packages in Fedora Extras Development is not Michael> short. Additionally, if reports for FE3, FE4 and FE Michael> Development were squeezed into the same mail, that would Michael> decrease readability even more. Create individuals mails for Michael> FE3/FE4/FE5? (that almost sounds like it could be merged Michael> with the "new packages" report) I would say split them up per branch. Michael> * How often to mail the packager? Michael> Would it be considered an annoyance to mail the packager Michael> daily because the script is run every day? Would it be enough Michael> to mail once then not repeat the reports for 7-14 days or Michael> unless the src.rpm file name changes? I would think an email each time it's run isn't too bad... Would perhaps get people fixing broken packages. On the other hand it might annoy people. :( Perhaps start out that way and see if people don't like that often? Michael> [...] Michael> The current scripts and their working directory can be found Michael> here for anybody who likes to take a look: Michael> http://home.arcor.de/ms2002sep/tmp/repoclosure-modified-20060208.tgz Oh, as a somewhat related note... would removing all the orphaned packages from the repo reduce the size of this report? I see a number of the packages with broken deps are also on the orphan list. That seems like they would be unlikely to get fixed ever until they have a maintainer. I would think we would want to remove a package if it has no maintainer... surely before fc5 release? kevin
Attachment:
pgpOdBl44jqsI.pgp
Description: PGP signature
-- fedora-extras-list mailing list fedora-extras-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-extras-list
