Miro Hrončok wrote:
> It was actually announced:
>
>
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org/thread/FV53ADNJB5STFN3YAEEXEVHMIA6DMXCN/
>
> But for reasons I don't understand, it was pushed to rawhide without using
> a side tag and without doing rebuilds :(
>
> I agree that untagging this is the best option now, it breaks hundreds of
> packages both on runtime and buildtime.
As a comaintainer of at least 2 of the affected packages (kdelibs3 and
kdelibs 4), I must say I do not really understand why this is such a big
deal. 18 packages would have needed to be rebuilt in Rawhide. "Hundreds of
packages" is just with transitive dependencies that do not all need to be
rebuilt. The untagging just makes us lose time because we can not rebuild
the packages directly in Rawhide now.
The fact that we got automatically filed FTI bugs within hours is also
absurd. It would be easiest to just have a provenpackager rebuild the
packages and not bother the maintainers at all (nor untag the package).
Filing a bug makes sense only if an FTI persists for more than a week at the
very least. Transient breakage in Rawhide is perfectly normal.
We have always worked that way in Rawhide: if a soname got bumped, just
rebuild the reverse dependencies and move on. It worked without any issues.
So I do not see why this is suddenly no longer allowed.
Kevin Kofler
_______________________________________________
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct:
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives:
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
Do not reply to spam on the list, report it:
https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
