Rebuilds needed for Fedora 8

[Christopher Brown]

On 21/08/07, Jesse Keating <jkeating at redhat.com> 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?

1. Slip T2 by one week.
2. ping fedora-devel-announce that conditions that $PACKAGE needs rebuilding
in two weeks
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.

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?

Comments and flames welcome.

Cheers
Chris

-- 
http://www.chruz.com
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/devel/attachments/20070821/069dc26a/attachment-0002.html