Rebuilds needed for Fedora 8

[Jesse Keating]

On Tue, 21 Aug 2007 17:02:49 +0200
Thorsten Leemhuis <fedora at leemhuis.info> wrote:

> A sorting by owner would have made hunting for packagers way more
> easier (especially if the number of packages owned is bigger then
> three or something like that).

I'm working on that now.  Will be somewhat difficult to list
co-maintainers, so just the owner according to koji will be used.

> > 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).  
> 
> Is adding a ".1" that bad after a warning period which allows the
> maintainers to do it in better ways?

Worth discussing.

> 
> > 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.  
> 
> - Don't slip FC8T2 for this
> - tell packagers to rebuild their packages
> - for all packages not rebuild or queued by <insert time> (let's say
> Friday morning maybe?) add a ".1" to release and let a script kick the
> rebuilds
> - create and run a small script that pokes maintainers by mail which
> didn't update the license tags yet
> - for all packages which failed rebuild or which license tag was still
> not updated in three weeks from now find a solution (nijas?)


-- 
Jesse Keating
Fedora -- All my bits are free, are yours?
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/devel/attachments/20070821/9c910e06/attachment-0002.bin