On 2025-02-10 18:39, Neal Gompa wrote:
On Mon, Feb 10, 2025 at 6:21 PM Fabio Valentini wrote:
On Mon, Feb 10, 2025 at 11:48 PM Tom Rix wrote:
I am glad the gcc change came in before the branch.
But I would rather it have come into rawhide after the branch so the last weeks
before the branc
Dne 10. 02. 25 v 21:25 Neal Gompa napsal(a):
On Mon, Feb 10, 2025 at 1:56 PM Kevin Fenzi wrote:
On Tue, Feb 04, 2025 at 06:41:07PM +0100, Vít Ondruch wrote:
I started replying to everything, but then I realized it's probibly not
worth me doing so. :)
...snip...
To sum this up, I can see 3
On Mon, Feb 10, 2025 at 6:21 PM Fabio Valentini wrote:
>
> On Mon, Feb 10, 2025 at 11:48 PM Tom Rix wrote:
> >
> > I am glad the gcc change came in before the branch.
> > But I would rather it have come into rawhide after the branch so the last
> > weeks before the branch could have been spent o
On Mon, Feb 10, 2025 at 11:48 PM Tom Rix wrote:
>
> I am glad the gcc change came in before the branch.
> But I would rather it have come into rawhide after the branch so the last
> weeks before the branch could have been spent on testing for F42 rather than
> scrambling to kludge/fix a lot of #
I am glad the gcc change came in before the branch.
But I would rather it have come into rawhide after the branch so the last weeks
before the branch could have been spent on testing for F42 rather than
scrambling to kludge/fix a lot of #include 's
--
On Mon, Feb 10, 2025 at 1:56 PM Kevin Fenzi wrote:
>
> On Tue, Feb 04, 2025 at 06:41:07PM +0100, Vít Ondruch wrote:
>
> I started replying to everything, but then I realized it's probibly not
> worth me doing so. :)
>
> ...snip...
>
> > To sum this up, I can see 3 benefits of mass rebuild:
> >
> >
On Tue, Feb 04, 2025 at 06:41:07PM +0100, Vít Ondruch wrote:
I started replying to everything, but then I realized it's probibly not
worth me doing so. :)
...snip...
> To sum this up, I can see 3 benefits of mass rebuild:
>
> 1) change of dist tag
>
> 2) ensuring all packages builds
>
> 3) en
Dne 31. 01. 25 v 20:41 Kevin Fenzi napsal(a):
On Fri, Jan 31, 2025 at 02:27:28PM +0100, Vít Ondruch wrote:
I am advocating for mass-rebuild as we do (i.e. to try to build everything)
to be done after stable branch is branched off. For this cycle, the F42 is
going to be branched on Tue 2025-02-0
On Fri, Jan 31, 2025 at 02:27:28PM +0100, Vít Ondruch wrote:
>
> I am advocating for mass-rebuild as we do (i.e. to try to build everything)
> to be done after stable branch is branched off. For this cycle, the F42 is
> going to be branched on Tue 2025-02-04, so some time after that (week,
> month
Dne 30. 01. 25 v 23:33 Kevin Fenzi napsal(a):
On Wed, Jan 29, 2025 at 10:01:09AM +0100, Vít Ondruch wrote:
Thanks for clarifying. Of course one reason for mass rebuild can be that we
are not able to properly identify the package set for more targeted mini
mass rebuild.
But IMHO, having just th
On 2025-01-30 17:33, Kevin Fenzi wrote:
On Wed, Jan 29, 2025 at 10:01:09AM +0100, Vít Ondruch wrote:
Thanks for clarifying. Of course one reason for mass rebuild can be that we
are not able to properly identify the package set for more targeted mini
mass rebuild.
But IMHO, having just the Copr
On Wed, Jan 29, 2025 at 10:01:09AM +0100, Vít Ondruch wrote:
>
> Thanks for clarifying. Of course one reason for mass rebuild can be that we
> are not able to properly identify the package set for more targeted mini
> mass rebuild.
>
> But IMHO, having just the Copr build to identify the problema
On Tue, Jan 28, 2025 at 07:32:49PM +0100, Vít Ondruch wrote:
>
> Dne 28. 01. 25 v 19:18 Kevin Fenzi napsal(a):
...snip...
> > 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
On Thu, Jan 30, 2025 at 4:11 PM Eike Rathke wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> On Monday, 2025-01-27 19:03:35 +0100, Fabio Valentini wrote:
>
> > In an effort to avoid the large amount of breakage during the mass
> > rebuild that happened with GCC 15 and Go 1.24 landing only *hours*
> > before it was started
>
>
Hi,
On Monday, 2025-01-27 19:03:35 +0100, Fabio Valentini wrote:
> In an effort to avoid the large amount of breakage during the mass
> rebuild that happened with GCC 15 and Go 1.24 landing only *hours*
> before it was started
Not only, I suspect an upgrade from rust-1.83.0 to rust-1.84.0 being
Dne 29. 01. 25 v 0:05 Siddhesh Poyarekar napsal(a):
On 2025-01-28 13:53, Vít Ondruch wrote:
Dne 28. 01. 25 v 18:53 Siddhesh Poyarekar napsal(a):
On 2025-01-28 05:19, Vít Ondruch wrote:
4) Having everything rebuild by GCC 15? That on itself is not a
goal IMHO. Making sure everything works with
On 2025-01-28 13:53, Vít Ondruch wrote:
Dne 28. 01. 25 v 18:53 Siddhesh Poyarekar napsal(a):
On 2025-01-28 05:19, Vít Ondruch wrote:
4) Having everything rebuild by GCC 15? That on itself is not a goal
IMHO. Making sure everything works with GCC 15 is good goal, but that
is problem for develop
Dne 28. 01. 25 v 18:53 Siddhesh Poyarekar napsal(a):
On 2025-01-28 05:19, Vít Ondruch wrote:
4) Having everything rebuild by GCC 15? That on itself is not a goal
IMHO. Making sure everything works with GCC 15 is good goal, but that
is problem for developers, not for users (we can argue if ther
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 Fedo
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 Fedo
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
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 el
On 2025-01-28 04:08, Karolina Surma wrote:
Regarding the gcc prebuild: I'd personally prefer to deal with a report
that may end up redirected to the gcc team or closed as not a bug weeks
in advance than being surprised by the build failure when an update
lands in Rawhide.
Thank you, that's us
On 2025-01-28 06:00, Vít Ondruch wrote:
This is debatable. Realistically, failure due to GCC does not need to be
fixed everywhere until really needed. It is good to have it fixed in
Rawhide to be ready for backport when needed.
Build failures don't *have* to be fixed right away, but in practic
On 2025-01-28 05:19, Vít Ondruch wrote:
4) Having everything rebuild by GCC 15? That on itself is not a goal
IMHO. Making sure everything works with GCC 15 is good goal, but that is
problem for developers, not for users (we can argue if there are CVEs,
this might become problem, but this is not
Dne 28. 01. 25 v 11:33 Daniel P. Berrangé 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 t
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 el
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.
These are m
Hi,
On 1/27/25 23:16, Siddhesh Poyarekar wrote:
Like Fabio mentioned, we already do this and tend to have that
information but don't communicate until we have determined that it is
relevant and as it happened this time around, it was too late. The main
reason why we hold on to the informati
On 2025-01-27 14:55, Michal Schorm wrote:
Alright, thanks for the explanation.
In that case, I think the RFC is a step in the right direction,
but I don't see it being useful, unless the change owners do the extra
step and file the FTBFS bugs to notify the maintainers.
They can do it already, bu
Alright, thanks for the explanation.
In that case, I think the RFC is a step in the right direction,
but I don't see it being useful, unless the change owners do the extra
step and file the FTBFS bugs to notify the maintainers.
They can do it already, but don't. Making them finish the change
soone
On Mon, Jan 27, 2025 at 8:02 PM Michal Schorm wrote:
>
> Does this RFC include an obligation for the 'major toolchain upgrades'
> Fedora Change owners to rebuild the dependent packages ?
No, but this is already happening to some degree.
For example, test builds with GCC snapshots were actually ha
Does this RFC include an obligation for the 'major toolchain upgrades'
Fedora Change owners to rebuild the dependent packages ?
I mean - without a failed build it doesn't really make a difference to me.
FTBFS bugzilla ticket is something I note and try to solve.
However without a rebuild, the cha
Hi all,
For reference, this has been discussed at the last FPC meeting:
https://meetbot.fedoraproject.org/meeting-1_matrix_fedoraproject-org/2025-01-23/fpc.2025-01-23-17.00.log.html
And I filed a corresponding RFC with FESCo here:
https://pagure.io/fesco/issue/3347
In an effort to avoid the larg
34 matches
Mail list logo
