ons 2010-12-08 klockan 11:41 + skrev Peter Robinson:
> It was my understanding that abrt was suppose to block on backtraces
> without debuginfo but I still regularly get bugs with little or no
> decent info.
True. I accidently filed a such abrt report some time ago. I assumed it
would fetch t
On Sat, Dec 11, 2010 at 01:44:54AM +0100, Kevin Kofler wrote:
> Matt Domsch wrote:
> > Last built on Fedora 12 (52):
>
> Huh?
>
> The right metric is not "when was this last built" but "when was this last
> BUILDABLE". We don't randomly rebuild stuff which doesn't need to be
> rebuilt.
>
> E.g
Toshio Kuratomi wrote:
> They shouldn't have to go through a re-review unless they've let the
> package sit in retirement for (I believe it's six months but someone else
> might have the policy URL handy).
Only 3 months.
And if the package doesn't build, the maintainer is probably not going to
c
Kevin Fenzi wrote:
> Have you considered training up some bugzappers to help triage your
> components? They could at least work on de-duping abrt reports.
Uh, I've pretty much given up on handling ABRT reports entirely. Even if
they were deduped, there are so many different Gnash crashes that's
Matt Domsch wrote:
> Last built on Fedora 12 (52):
Huh?
The right metric is not "when was this last built" but "when was this last
BUILDABLE". We don't randomly rebuild stuff which doesn't need to be
rebuilt.
E.g.:
> celestia-1.5.1-2.fc12 [u'631077 NEW'] (build/make) steve,mmahut
(the first on
> "PR" == Peter Robinson writes:
PR> My understanding was that if it was blocked it had to go through
PR> review again.
Depends on how long:
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Orphaned_package_that_need_new_maintainers
"
Re-review required for older packages
If a package was last updated more
On Thu, Dec 9, 2010 at 12:43 AM, Toshio Kuratomi wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 08, 2010 at 11:48:26AM +, Peter Robinson wrote:
>> On Wed, Dec 8, 2010 at 8:50 AM, Adam Williamson wrote:
>> > so are all these bugs, for that matter: they're actual bugs encountered
>> > by Matt. The package failing to bui
On Wed, Dec 08, 2010 at 11:48:26AM +, Peter Robinson wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 8, 2010 at 8:50 AM, Adam Williamson wrote:
> > so are all these bugs, for that matter: they're actual bugs encountered
> > by Matt. The package failing to build is clearly a bug. Matt tried to
> > build it and so encount
Matt Domsch wrote:
> I would like to propose blocking packages at the F15 alpha compose
> point if they have not resolved their FTBFS from F14 or earlier. The
> lists may be broken down by when they last did build. With 3
> exceptions, these 110 bugs are all still in NEW state as well, so they
>
On Tue, 2010-12-07 at 20:29 -0600, Matt Domsch wrote:
> My goal isn't to make life difficult for everyone. My goal is to keep
> the distribution in a form where it can actually build from the open
> source we provide.
Thanks Matt. What you're doing is vitally important for the
distribution, sinc
On Wed, Dec 08, 2010 at 12:01:39 +,
Bastien Nocera wrote:
>
> It's a file'n'dump bug. There's no one that actually looked at the bugs
> to try and analyse them, nobody to offer a reminder in the bugs (they
> were filed and left untouched).
I went through a number of FTBFS bugs for other pe
On Wed, Dec 08, 2010 at 12:01:39PM +, Bastien Nocera wrote:
> On Wed, 2010-12-08 at 00:50 -0800, Adam Williamson wrote:
> > On Wed, 2010-12-08 at 01:05 +, Bastien Nocera wrote:
> >
> > > And I'll go back to fixing actual bugs encountered by people instead of
> > > random bot-driven bugs.
>
On Wed, 2010-12-08 at 00:50 -0800, Adam Williamson wrote:
> On Wed, 2010-12-08 at 01:05 +, Bastien Nocera wrote:
>
> > And I'll go back to fixing actual bugs encountered by people instead of
> > random bot-driven bugs.
>
> every abrt report, ever, is an actual bug encountered by an actual
> p
On Wed, 2010-12-08 at 11:37 +, Bastien Nocera wrote:
> GNOME's dup finder:
> http://git.gnome.org/browse/bugzilla-newer/tree/dupfinder
>
> The README is probably outdated, as per:
> http://live.gnome.org/BugzillaUpgrade/UpgradeStatus#Simple-dup-finder
Filed as:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/sh
On Wed, Dec 8, 2010 at 8:50 AM, Adam Williamson wrote:
> On Wed, 2010-12-08 at 01:05 +, Bastien Nocera wrote:
>
>> And I'll go back to fixing actual bugs encountered by people instead of
>> random bot-driven bugs.
>
> every abrt report, ever, is an actual bug encountered by an actual
> person.
On Wed, Dec 8, 2010 at 1:12 AM, Kevin Fenzi wrote:
> On Wed, 08 Dec 2010 01:05:06 +
> Bastien Nocera wrote:
>
> ...snip...
>
>> > The
>> > lists may be broken down by when they last did build. With 3
>> > exceptions, these 110 bugs are all still in NEW state as well, so
>> > they haven't h
On Tue, 2010-12-07 at 18:12 -0700, Kevin Fenzi wrote:
> On Wed, 08 Dec 2010 01:05:06 +
> Bastien Nocera wrote:
>
> ...snip...
>
> > > The
> > > lists may be broken down by when they last did build. With 3
> > > exceptions, these 110 bugs are all still in NEW state as well, so
> > > they h
On 12/08/2010 09:50 AM, Adam Williamson wrote:
> On Wed, 2010-12-08 at 01:05 +, Bastien Nocera wrote:
> I agree it's a bit questionable whether we should block packages for
> FTBFS,
IMO, there can't be any doubt about FTBFS's to be "must fixes" and them
to release blockers for packages being
On Wed, 2010-12-08 at 01:05 +, Bastien Nocera wrote:
> And I'll go back to fixing actual bugs encountered by people instead of
> random bot-driven bugs.
every abrt report, ever, is an actual bug encountered by an actual
person. They have to be sufficiently narked about the app crashing (and
i
On Mon, Dec 06, 2010 at 11:01:20PM -0600, Matt Domsch wrote:
> I would like to propose blocking packages at the F15 alpha compose
> point if they have not resolved their FTBFS from F14 or earlier. The
> lists may be broken down by when they last did build. With 3
> exceptions, these 110 bugs are
On Wed, 08 Dec 2010 01:05:06 +
Bastien Nocera wrote:
...snip...
> > The
> > lists may be broken down by when they last did build. With 3
> > exceptions, these 110 bugs are all still in NEW state as well, so
> > they haven't had much maintainer love in quite some time (6-18
> > months).
>
On Mon, 2010-12-06 at 23:01 -0600, Matt Domsch wrote:
> I would like to propose blocking packages at the F15 alpha compose
> point if they have not resolved their FTBFS from F14 or earlier.
You better not.
> The
> lists may be broken down by when they last did build. With 3
> exceptions, these
Ralf Corsepius wrote:
> On 12/07/2010 06:41 AM, Matt Domsch wrote:
>> On Tue, Dec 07, 2010 at 03:35:35PM +1000, Jeffrey Fearn wrote:
>>> Matt Domsch wrote:
I would like to propose blocking packages at the F15 alpha compose
point if they have not resolved their FTBFS from F14 or earlier.
On Tue, Dec 7, 2010 at 8:12 PM, Matt Domsch wrote:
>> Note that I am not advocating keeping these packages unfixed. I wanted
>> to point out that things might turn ugly and might even trigger an
>> avalanche when you remove the FTBFS packages from the repo and then
>> the packages that depend on t
On Tue, Dec 07, 2010 at 02:10:00PM -0500, Orcan Ogetbil wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 7, 2010 at 12:01 AM, Matt Domsch wrote:
> > I would like to propose blocking packages at the F15 alpha compose
> > point if they have not resolved their FTBFS from F14 or earlier. ??The
> > lists may be broken down by when
On Tue, Dec 7, 2010 at 12:01 AM, Matt Domsch wrote:
> I would like to propose blocking packages at the F15 alpha compose
> point if they have not resolved their FTBFS from F14 or earlier. The
> lists may be broken down by when they last did build. With 3
> exceptions, these 110 bugs are all still
On Mon, Dec 06, 2010 at 11:01:20PM -0600, Matt Domsch wrote:
> mingw32-libglademm24-2.6.7-8.fc12 [u'631374 NEW'] (build/make) sailer,rjones
> mingw32-pangomm-2.26.0-1.fc12 [u'631208 NEW'] (build/make) sailer,rjones
> mingw32-plotmm-0.1.2-4.fc12 [u'631082 NEW'] (build/make) sailer,rjones
> mingw32-g
On Tue, 2010-12-07 at 01:01 -0500, Jon Masters wrote:
> On Mon, 2010-12-06 at 23:01 -0600, Matt Domsch wrote:
>
> > I trust module-init-tools will get resolved with an impending upstream
> > release. Not like that can go unfixed forever. :-)
>
> Should be fixed before Wednesday (tomorrow). I hav
On Mon, 2010-12-06 at 23:01 -0600, Matt Domsch wrote:
> I trust module-init-tools will get resolved with an impending upstream
> release. Not like that can go unfixed forever. :-)
Should be fixed before Wednesday (tomorrow). I have some fixes for
compressed modules too. Will let you know when th
On 12/07/2010 06:41 AM, Matt Domsch wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 07, 2010 at 03:35:35PM +1000, Jeffrey Fearn wrote:
>> Matt Domsch wrote:
>>> I would like to propose blocking packages at the F15 alpha compose
>>> point if they have not resolved their FTBFS from F14 or earlier. The
>>> lists may be broken
On Tue, Dec 07, 2010 at 03:35:35PM +1000, Jeffrey Fearn wrote:
> Matt Domsch wrote:
> > I would like to propose blocking packages at the F15 alpha compose
> > point if they have not resolved their FTBFS from F14 or earlier. The
> > lists may be broken down by when they last did build. With 3
> >
Matt Domsch wrote:
> I would like to propose blocking packages at the F15 alpha compose
> point if they have not resolved their FTBFS from F14 or earlier. The
> lists may be broken down by when they last did build. With 3
> exceptions, these 110 bugs are all still in NEW state as well, so they
>
On Mon, Dec 06, 2010 at 11:13:49PM -0600, Garrett Holmstrom wrote:
> On 12/6/2010 23:01, Matt Domsch wrote:
> > I would like to propose blocking packages at the F15 alpha compose
> > point if they have not resolved their FTBFS from F14 or earlier. The
> > lists may be broken down by when they last
On 12/6/2010 23:01, Matt Domsch wrote:
> I would like to propose blocking packages at the F15 alpha compose
> point if they have not resolved their FTBFS from F14 or earlier. The
> lists may be broken down by when they last did build. With 3
> exceptions, these 110 bugs are all still in NEW state
I would like to propose blocking packages at the F15 alpha compose
point if they have not resolved their FTBFS from F14 or earlier. The
lists may be broken down by when they last did build. With 3
exceptions, these 110 bugs are all still in NEW state as well, so they
haven't had much maintainer l
35 matches
Mail list logo
