[HEADS UP] Ongoing rebuild of Python3.5 in Rawhide

[Kalev Lember]

On 11/04/2015 12:23 PM, Robert Kuska wrote:
> There is ongoing rebuild of Python3.5 in rawhide's side-tag f24-python3.
> 
> I would like to ask all maintainers to rebuild their packages (which
> depend on python3) within the f24-python3 side-tag.
> 
> To rebuild your package simply run:
> `fedpkg build --target f24-python3`
> 
> You can find all packages that were already rebuilt here:
> 
> http://taiga.cloud.fedoraproject.org/project/rkuska-python35-rebuild/kanban
> 
> Feel free to add your package once your build pass successfully. Side-tag
> will be merged hopefully by the end of the week, mass rebuild will follow
> to avoid breakage of rawhide.

Thanks for doing this! Great to see Python 3.5 landing.

I have a concern with the above plan though that says that Python 3.5
will be merged into rawhide, followed by a mass rebuild. I would say it
makes sense to do it the other way around though: First rebuild all the
dependant packages in the side tag, and only then merge it all back into
rawhide, avoiding breakage.

You say that "mass rebuild will follow to avoid breakage of rawhide" --
I am not sure how you mean this, but if the plan is to merge back Python
3.5 into rawhide and then wait for the F24 mass rebuild, I would say
this is not a good plan. Please rebuild things before merging it back.

The reason why I am saying that it is not a good plan to rely on the F24
mass rebuild to rebuild all the Python modules is that the mass rebuild
is done in alphabetical order, just going from a-z. This does not work
for rebuilding large dependency chains because for those, you'd have to
go in dependency order, waiting for lower level packages to hit the
build roots before moving on to packages that depend on those. Regular
mass rebuilds don't do this and as such, cannot be used for rebuilding
big dependency chains such as the Python 3 stack.

Also, you've asked for individual maintainers to rebuild their packages
on the side tag. Sure, it's great to give individual package maintainers
an option to do it first, but you can't rely on that. I know how this is
going to go: a few maintainers are going to rebuild their packages, but
the vast majority won't. It will need action from the proposal owners to
get everything rebuilt -- that what provenpackager access is for.

-- 
Kalev