Re: RFC: Additional checkpoint for major toolchain updates before mass rebuild

[Vít Ondruch]

Dne 28. 01. 25 v 19:32 Vít Ondruch napsal(a):

Dne 28. 01. 25 v 19:18 Kevin Fenzi napsal(a):

On Tue, Jan 28, 2025 at 11:19:02AM +0100, Vít Ondruch wrote:

I think we should stop and think again why we do mass rebuilds and why we do them prior release. "The goal is to rebuild every single Fedora package, regardless of content, before the Fedora 41 Change Deadline." [1] is not

very elaborated and I was not able to find anything better.

So, would it surprise you to learn that we (at least in the past) didn't
do mass rebuilds every cycle?

I am aware of that.

The policy (as I understand it) is that we schedule mass rebuilds when
there are approved changes that have requested that.

This time we have:

https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_42_Mass_Rebuild#Driving_Features

And thanks for pointing out this section, I have somehow missed it.


Vít

I am not sure why Ruby is there

Interesting. We are doing minimass rebuild for Ruby and I think it is enough.

... the sbin change does mention mass
rebuild, but the toolchain one explicitly asks for one.

...snip...

So why won't we postpone the mass rebuild after branching? That would IMHO provide the most user visible change and that is the change of dist tag. And

it would provide the information about the general state of packages.

Mass rebuilding which? Rawhide or the new branched? Or both?

I am talking about Rawhide

rawhide would be fine, but all those changes would have to be made again
in branched when found.

Vít

Are you speaking about changes due to updated toolchain? As I elaborated elsewhere, I don't think they need to be fixed. Do we actually know what percentage of packages is touched after branching? One might argue that doing the mass rebuild after branching would increase the number, but I don't think it would change anything. I believe that only the relevant changes would be backported when needed.

branched would be bad because then we would have to fix rawhide, but
rawhide is supposed to be ahead of branched so we are working backwards.

both is a gigantic waste of resources, double builds, more bugs, more
churn for maintainers.

kevin

OpenPGP_signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

-- 
_______________________________________________
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, report it: 
https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue