On 21/08/07, <b class="gmail_sendername">Jesse Keating</b> <<a href="mailto:jkeating@redhat.com">jkeating@redhat.com</a>> wrote:<div><span class="gmail_quote"></span><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">
There are currently two technical issues that require rebuilding of<br>packages.<br><br>1) a bad binutils was used in buildroots for almost two months that<br>caused all ppc32 binaries to need execmem. SELinux rightfully denies
<br>this. We need to rebuild the effected packages so that ppc and SELinux<br>work again.<br><br>2) build-id (<a href="http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Releases/FeatureBuildId">http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Releases/FeatureBuildId
</a>)<br>Any binary package with a debuginfo package that hasn't been built<br>after the good build-id stuff landed needs to be rebuilt so that it has<br>a build-id.<br><br>The unique combination of these two has led to a list of 2845 packages
<br>that will need to be rebuilt.<br>(<a href="http://jkeating.fedorapeople.org/really-need-to-rebuild">http://jkeating.fedorapeople.org/really-need-to-rebuild</a>) That's 598<br>packages that need rebuilding for the ppc32 issue, and 2831 that need
<br>building due to the build-id issue (there is obviously some crossover).<br><br>At the absolute minimum we need the ppc32 builds done before Test2,<br>which has a freeze date in one week. We'd /like/ to have them all done
<br>as build-id is an important feature of Fedora 8 and Test2 is the<br>Feature Freeze and if you're building 600 packages, might as well build<br>3K.<br><br>A less technical but a nonetheless important rebuild issue is correct
<br>package licensing. We have a goal to have all our packages with (a)<br>correct License(s) tag in the spec file, and a build with that correct<br>tag. I do not have the numbers currently as to how many still need<br>
updating, it is not a small number. Also important to note is that for<br>the above technical issues no changes are needed in the package beyond<br>a release bump and a build. But for the license tag issue there is a<br>
significant number of packages that still have the invalid license and<br>need auditing and changing.<br><br>Given that with just the fully technical issues we're at just a bit<br>over 1/2 the package set for Fedora we've got some hard choices to
<br>make. Obviously we'd like to rely upon the maintainers to rebuild<br>their packages, however with just a week to accomplish this that may be<br>nearly impossible. It's also a rather large number of packages to try
<br>and automate over, with a large degree of different $release values to<br>try and automatically bump (especially without resorting to just<br>plonking a ".1" to the end of everything which is against the<br>
guidelines). There is also a rather large list of things that failed<br>to rebuild during Matt Domsch's last rebuild test, and I don't know how<br>many of those have been fixed. That can cause some delays as well.
<br><br>So I ask you, great Fedora Community, how do we want to handle this<br>situation? I'm open for suggestions, but we should decide something<br>before the end of the day given our time constraints.<br><br>I'm going to continue working on these lists and keeping them updated,
<br>perhaps getting a mapping of maintainer to package, or whatever format<br>the community finds useful.</blockquote><div><br>How does this sound?<br><br>1. Slip T2 by one week.<br>2. ping fedora-devel-announce that conditions that $PACKAGE needs rebuilding in two weeks
<br>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.)<br>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.
<br></div><br></div>Anyone who has not rebuilt after one week has no excuses as if they are away they should be on the vacation list right. Right?<br><br>Comments and flames welcome.<br><br>Cheers<br>Chris<br><br>-- <br><a href="http://www.chruz.com">
http://www.chruz.com</a>