Dear maintainers.
Based on the current fail to build from source policy, the following packages will be retired from Fedora 35 approximately one week before branching (August 2021).
Policy: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/fesco/Fails_to_build_from_source_Fails_...
The packages in rawhide were not successfully built at least since Fedora 32.
This report is based on dist tags.
Packages collected via: https://github.com/hroncok/fedora-report-ftbfs-retirements/blob/master/ftbfs...
If you see a package that was built, please let me know. If you see a package that should be exempted from the process, please let me know and we can work together to get a FESCo approval for that.
If you see a package that can be rebuilt, please do so.
Package (co)maintainers Latest build ================================================================================ cardpeek kalev Fedora 32 percona-xtrabackup slaanesh, slankes Fedora 32 php-opencloud-openstack lcts Fedora 32 proxyfuzz psklenar Fedora 32 radamsa huzaifas, mrniranjan Fedora 32 sugar-view-slides callkalpa, chimosky, pbrobinson, Fedora 31 tuxbrewr zram pbrobinson Fedora 32
The following packages require above mentioned packages: Depending on: percona-xtrabackup (1), status change: 2020-11-22 (31 weeks ago) holland (maintained by: immanetize, jeffreyness, survient) holland-xtrabackup-1.2.4-2.fc35.noarch requires /usr/bin/xtrabackup
Affected (co)maintainers callkalpa: sugar-view-slides chimosky: sugar-view-slides huzaifas: radamsa immanetize: percona-xtrabackup jeffreyness: percona-xtrabackup kalev: cardpeek lcts: php-opencloud-openstack mrniranjan: radamsa pbrobinson: zram, sugar-view-slides psklenar: proxyfuzz slaanesh: percona-xtrabackup slankes: percona-xtrabackup survient: percona-xtrabackup tuxbrewr: sugar-view-slides
On 30. 06. 21 1:32, Miro Hrončok wrote:
Dear maintainers.
Based on the current fail to build from source policy, the following packages will be retired from Fedora 35 approximately one week before branching (August 2021).
Policy: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/fesco/Fails_to_build_from_source_Fails_...
The packages in rawhide were not successfully built at least since Fedora 32.
This report is based on dist tags.
Packages collected via: https://github.com/hroncok/fedora-report-ftbfs-retirements/blob/master/ftbfs...
If you see a package that was built, please let me know. If you see a package that should be exempted from the process, please let me know and we can work together to get a FESCo approval for that.
If you see a package that can be rebuilt, please do so.
Package (co)maintainers Latest build
cardpeek kalev Fedora 32
Has ASSIGNED bugzillas since Fedora 33:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1863309 https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1923409
percona-xtrabackup slaanesh, slankes Fedora 32
Has a MODIFIED bugzilla since Fedora 33:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1865206
php-opencloud-openstack lcts Fedora 32
Has CLOSED (but not fixed) and NEW bugzillas since Fedora 33:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1865221 https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1923428 https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1977297
proxyfuzz psklenar Fedora 32
Had no bugzillas because it failed to build even the SRPM. I've opened one quite recently:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1974327
radamsa huzaifas, mrniranjan Fedora 32
Has no bugzillas, the mass rebuilds builds never finished (they hang for days)
sugar-view-slides callkalpa, chimosky, pbrobinson, Fedora 31 tuxbrewr
Fails to install, fails to build since Fedora 32, was exempted from this policy last time with a promise of a fix.
Has many bugzillas https://bugzilla.redhat.com/buglist.cgi?component=sugar-view-slides&prod...
zram pbrobinson Fedora 32
This might not actually be a FTBFS, but simply a package that has not been built in 1.5 years. It has a noautobuild file with:
it's a couple of bash scripts, no need for rebuilds
I tend to disagree with that statement. The rebuilds are useful for:
- new possible dependency generators - new possible buildroot policy scripts - new RPM/buildsystem features (compression, content signatures, etc.)
I think it's worth rebuilding it at least once in a year.
On Wed, Jun 30, 2021 at 01:36:40AM +0200, Miro Hrončok wrote:
On 30. 06. 21 1:32, Miro Hrončok wrote:
Dear maintainers.
Based on the current fail to build from source policy, the following packages will be retired from Fedora 35 approximately one week before branching (August 2021).
Policy: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/fesco/Fails_to_build_from_source_Fails_...
The packages in rawhide were not successfully built at least since Fedora 32.
This report is based on dist tags.
Packages collected via: https://github.com/hroncok/fedora-report-ftbfs-retirements/blob/master/ftbfs...
If you see a package that was built, please let me know. If you see a package that should be exempted from the process, please let me know and we can work together to get a FESCo approval for that.
If you see a package that can be rebuilt, please do so.
Package (co)maintainers Latest build
cardpeek kalev Fedora 32
Has ASSIGNED bugzillas since Fedora 33:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1863309 https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1923409
percona-xtrabackup slaanesh, slankes Fedora 32
Has a MODIFIED bugzilla since Fedora 33:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1865206
php-opencloud-openstack lcts Fedora 32
Has CLOSED (but not fixed) and NEW bugzillas since Fedora 33:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1865221 https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1923428 https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1977297
proxyfuzz psklenar Fedora 32
Had no bugzillas because it failed to build even the SRPM. I've opened one quite recently:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1974327
radamsa huzaifas, mrniranjan Fedora 32
Has no bugzillas, the mass rebuilds builds never finished (they hang for days)
It'd be sad to lose radamsa from the distro. I pushed a snapshot build.
sugar-view-slides callkalpa, chimosky, pbrobinson, Fedora 31 tuxbrewr
Fails to install, fails to build since Fedora 32, was exempted from this policy last time with a promise of a fix.
Has many bugzillas https://bugzilla.redhat.com/buglist.cgi?component=sugar-view-slides&prod...
zram pbrobinson Fedora 32
This might not actually be a FTBFS, but simply a package that has not been built in 1.5 years. It has a noautobuild file with:
it's a couple of bash scripts, no need for rebuilds
I tend to disagree with that statement. The rebuilds are useful for:
- new possible dependency generators
- new possible buildroot policy scripts
- new RPM/buildsystem features (compression, content signatures, etc.)
I think it's worth rebuilding it at least once in a year.
It's a case of "save a little bit of work for the machine by generating more work for the humans" ;) Yeah, a bad trade-off.
Zbyszek
On Wednesday, June 30, 2021 5:43:10 AM EDT Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek wrote:
radamsa huzaifas, mrniranjan Fedora 32>
Has no bugzillas, the mass rebuilds builds never finished (they hang for days)
It'd be sad to lose radamsa from the distro. I pushed a snapshot build.
Agreed and thanks. It has found many bugs in Fedora packages. However, I see that the package's version has a '^' in it. I wonder if that is a typo?
-Steve
On Wed, Jun 30, 2021 at 12:57:18PM -0400, Steve Grubb wrote:
On Wednesday, June 30, 2021 5:43:10 AM EDT Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek wrote:
radamsa huzaifas, mrniranjan Fedora 32>
Has no bugzillas, the mass rebuilds builds never finished (they hang for days)
It'd be sad to lose radamsa from the distro. I pushed a snapshot build.
Agreed and thanks. It has found many bugs in Fedora packages. However, I see that the package's version has a '^' in it. I wonder if that is a typo?
That's just me hoping that https://pagure.io/packaging-committee/pull-request/1073 gets approved ;-]
Zbyszek
-
Miro Hrončok -
Steve Grubb -
Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek