pushing updates for FTBFS

Kevin Fenzi kevin at scrye.com
Sat Sep 25 18:26:35 UTC 2010

On Wed, 22 Sep 2010 16:39:00 -0400
Toshio Kuratomi <a.badger at gmail.com> wrote:

> The problem is that we'd want to know what the ramifications of the
> update are to the release.  What if the fix for the FTBFS causes an
> ABI break... but it's also the only way to fix the FTBFS within our
> manpower needs? Better to do that before F14 has shipped than be
> forced to do that after it has shipped.  I can come up with other
> scenarios that are similar but they're all just about identifying
> what cascading problems could occur up front rather than defering it
> to when we have a time-critical update to get out the door.

True. So, I guess it gets down to why the thing was FTBFS and what
needed to be done to fix it. 

In the past, all the ones I have had have been minor linking or build
options that didn't seem to affect the end package much, but of course
there could be other cases. 

So, yeah, you may be right that we should push these to branched
releases as well just to be sure... 

-------------- 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/20100925/ebca30c9/attachment.bin 

More information about the devel mailing list