On Wed, 27 Jul 2011 09:19:08 -0700, JK (Jesse) wrote: > On 7/27/11 2:03 AM, Michael Schwendt wrote: > > There is a big difference between "a package going backwards in its EVR > > and staying there" and "a package getting untagged because it breaks koji > > buildroot and with the plan to go forward in EVR as soon as the bug is > > found and fixed". > > If it goes backwards to await a fix, that fix needs to be happening > within the same day or so.
Panu has mentioned that he will be looking into fixing this unexpected breakage. If that isn't acceptable to you, feel free to provide a fix faster. > Not prolonged so that updates fail on users' > systems. Do they fail in this case? Do you prefer rpm-build in koji buildroot to fail even longer? An issue with rpm-build on Rawhide installations is minor compared with Fedora's offical buildsys. > > In this case, the bad rpm-build broke koji builds, and since Rawhide > > may eat babies, it can happen that Rawhide users need downgrade manually > > while they have to wait for the fixed rpm-build. > > We are trying very hard to kill the notion that "rawhide may eat > babies". It's non-productive. There are multiple ways to throw > baby-eating updates over the wall for testing before they get into > rawhide. Stop treating it like a dumping ground. Take off your pink glasses. Rawhide *is* a dumping ground. It breaks users' installations regularly because of package maintainers using it as exactly that, a dumping ground for potentially untested builds. And in either case, I'm the wrong target of your flames. -- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
