pushing updates for FTBFS

Kevin Fenzi kevin at scrye.com
Wed Sep 22 18:38:50 UTC 2010

On Wed, 22 Sep 2010 13:37:44 -0400
Toshio Kuratomi <a.badger at gmail.com> wrote:

> For (unreleased) F14, I think that the arugment that future work on
> the package is better off starting with something that works than to
> start off with something that's broken by new gcc, boost, etc is very
> valid.

Sure. I would suggest fixing the issue and even commiting the fixed
spec, but I don't know that it's worth pushing an update out for. 
> If I get a time-sensitive security bug about foo in Fedora 14, I want
> to have as few extraneous issues as possible so I can hunt down and
> fix the bug quickly.

Yep. Also, if someone wants to build your package and fix something or
test something it's nice to have the fixed version sitting there ready
in git. 

> In released Fedora's that argument starts to lose weight because the
> window in which a bug that *must* be fixed could be discovered goes
> down (ie: F12 only has a few more months of life so there's a much
> smaller time period in which a must-fix bug could be discovered.
> (OTOH, fxing FTBFS in a just released Fedora is probably still a good
> reason to update.)

I suppose, but it seems like it's just wasting our users time unless it
fixes something that the user would see. If it's just fixing a build
issue, but the program is the exact same version and behavior, didn't
we just waste resources pushing it out to the user?

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 198 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/devel/attachments/20100922/72ce348e/attachment.bin 

More information about the devel mailing list