Results of a test mass rebuild of rawhide/x86_64 with gcc-4.7.0-0.1.fc17

Pádraig Brady P at draigBrady.com
Tue Jan 3 12:16:56 UTC 2012


On 01/02/2012 06:03 PM, Jim Meyering wrote:
> Nils Philippsen wrote:
> ...
>> I've attached a list of packages and (co)maintainers, to easily find if
>> one of your packages is affected or not.
> ...
>> iwhd: meyering - clalance,zaitcev
> 
> Thank you for the list.
> 
> I have just tried to build iwhd on F16 using a pretty recent gcc-4.7.x
> (built manually: 4.7.0 20111202), and it worked fine, so I'm not quite
> sure why iwhd is on the list.  Maybe the gcc-4.7.x that Jakub used
> lacks something that's in my Dec 2 snapshot, or maybe it's simply a
> problem in a dependent that has been fixed in the interim.
> 
> Oh!!! I see it.
> The tested version (the one in rawhide) is iwhd-1.1,
> while the latest is 1.2 (which is in F16).  Shame on me
> for not putting the latest also in rawhide.
> 
> Is there some sort of reminder service that could be configured
> to nag the maintainers of a package in a situation like this?
> Personally, I would appreciate it, and I think Fedora would
> benefit if we could do something to minimize reverse-version
> skew between Fedora-latest and rawhide.
> 
> Even if it's just a weekly posting of offenders to fedora-devel,
> so people know it's an issue...

I recently tried to add an F16 update without having the build in rawhide,
and the update was rejected, saying the last built version in rawhide
was older.  I used the web interface to generate the update, but surely
that logic is not just in the web interface?

cheers,
Pádraig.


More information about the devel mailing list