Re: Let's revisit the FTBFS policy

2019-08-16 Thread Jason L Tibbitts III
> "GH" == Gerald Henriksen writes: GH> On the other hand, unbuildable packages could be viewed as a GH> security risk. I mentioned security explicitly in my message. Just not in the portion you quoted. GH> If you can't just fix the security issue and rebuild, but instead GH> have to also

Re: Let's revisit the FTBFS policy

2019-08-16 Thread Adam Williamson
On Fri, 2019-08-16 at 15:21 +0100, Richard W.M. Jones wrote: > On Wed, Aug 14, 2019 at 10:30:36AM -0700, Adam Williamson wrote: > > I think the process is actually great. I kinda prefer the direction of > > travel where we expect that packages are actively maintained and quite > > aggressively

Re: Let's revisit the FTBFS policy

2019-08-16 Thread Miro Hrončok
On 16. 08. 19 16:21, Richard W.M. Jones wrote: I think if you make it easy to "throw out" packages then you must also make it easy to add them back later. People do a lot of work adding and maintaining packages and requiring a full re-review for a package that was retired a few days ago is too

Re: Let's revisit the FTBFS policy

2019-08-16 Thread Richard W.M. Jones
On Wed, Aug 14, 2019 at 10:30:36AM -0700, Adam Williamson wrote: > I think the process is actually great. I kinda prefer the direction of > travel where we expect that packages are actively maintained and quite > aggressively throw them out if they aren't, to the direction where we > accumulate

Re: Let's revisit the FTBFS policy

2019-08-16 Thread Martin Kolman
On Thu, 2019-08-15 at 09:50 -0400, Gerald Henriksen wrote: > On Wed, 14 Aug 2019 11:23:53 -0500, you wrote: > > > So in summary, I guess I mostly support allowing packages which can't be > > rebuilt to stay in the distribution as long as they actually work and > > aren't causing maintenance

Re: Let's revisit the FTBFS policy

2019-08-15 Thread Kevin Kofler
Richard Shaw wrote: > Perhaps a partial solution is encouraging people to ask for help. Sure > it's easy to post to the devel list but sometimes it's difficult to admit > you need help :) IMHO, it should be the job of those people who broke the packages to fix them. E.g., if yet another

Re: Let's revisit the FTBFS policy

2019-08-15 Thread Richard Shaw
On Thu, Aug 15, 2019 at 1:33 PM Adam Williamson wrote: > Or just fix it so it damn well builds. Even if *you* don't need to use > it. I mean, is it so hard? I get *itchy* if I have an FTBFS bug on one > of my packages for three days. I can't imagine letting one sit there > for six months! > I

Re: Let's revisit the FTBFS policy

2019-08-15 Thread Adam Williamson
On Thu, 2019-08-15 at 09:33 +0200, Miro Hrončok wrote: > On 15. 08. 19 7:39, Vít Ondruch wrote: > > Of course you might consider this special case, but apparently all the > > other people who speak up had different special cases. > > "special cases aren't special enough to break the rules" > > I

Re: Let's revisit the FTBFS policy

2019-08-15 Thread Gerald Henriksen
On Wed, 14 Aug 2019 11:23:53 -0500, you wrote: >So in summary, I guess I mostly support allowing packages which can't be >rebuilt to stay in the distribution as long as they actually work and >aren't causing maintenance burden elsewhere On the other hand, unbuildable packages could be viewed as

Re: Let's revisit the FTBFS policy

2019-08-15 Thread Miro Hrončok
On 15. 08. 19 14:40, Vít Ondruch wrote: Interestingly enough, some people who complains the most about the process are too busy to even switch the component to assigned ... ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ To rephrase: People have real work to do, so we should stop bothering them. -- Miro Hrončok -- Phone:

Re: Let's revisit the FTBFS policy

2019-08-15 Thread Vít Ondruch
Dne 15. 08. 19 v 14:40 Vít Ondruch napsal(a): > > > Dne 15. 08. 19 v 13:36 Pavel Valena napsal(a): >> - Original Message - >>> Sent: Thursday, August 15, 2019 12:42:02 PM >>> Subject: Re: Let's revisit the FTBFS policy >>> >>> On 1

Re: Let's revisit the FTBFS policy

2019-08-15 Thread Vít Ondruch
Dne 15. 08. 19 v 13:36 Pavel Valena napsal(a): > - Original Message - >> Sent: Thursday, August 15, 2019 12:42:02 PM >> Subject: Re: Let's revisit the FTBFS policy >> >> On 15. 08. 19 12:06, Vít Ondruch wrote: >>> At the end, if somebody cares abo

Re: Let's revisit the FTBFS policy

2019-08-15 Thread Pavel Valena
- Original Message - > Sent: Thursday, August 15, 2019 12:42:02 PM > Subject: Re: Let's revisit the FTBFS policy > > On 15. 08. 19 12:06, Vít Ondruch wrote: > > At the end, if somebody cares about such cases, it should not be hard to > > discover and act

Re: Let's revisit the FTBFS policy

2019-08-15 Thread Miro Hrončok
On 15. 08. 19 12:06, Vít Ondruch wrote: At the end, if somebody cares about such cases, it should not be hard to discover and act upon them, i.e. bugging the maintainer, fixing them, taking over the maintenance etc. This part is problematic. Because it requires human action that can be seen as

Re: Let's revisit the FTBFS policy

2019-08-15 Thread Vít Ondruch
Dne 15. 08. 19 v 9:33 Miro Hrončok napsal(a): > On 15. 08. 19 7:39, Vít Ondruch wrote: >> Of course you might consider this special case, but apparently all the >> other people who speak up had different special cases. > > "special cases aren't special enough to break the rules" They had either

Re: Let's revisit the FTBFS policy

2019-08-15 Thread Panu Matilainen
On 8/14/19 8:22 PM, Ben Cotton wrote: I want to publicly express my appreciation for Miro's efforts to enforce our policy and his willingness to take the hits from people being rightly upset at its flaws. Seconded. FWIW. - Panu - ___ devel

Re: Let's revisit the FTBFS policy

2019-08-15 Thread Miro Hrončok
On 15. 08. 19 7:39, Vít Ondruch wrote: Of course you might consider this special case, but apparently all the other people who speak up had different special cases. "special cases aren't special enough to break the rules" I still think that if somebody would need to keep package unretired for

Re: Let's revisit the FTBFS policy

2019-08-14 Thread Vít Ondruch
Dne 14. 08. 19 v 19:43 Miro Hrončok napsal(a): > On 14. 08. 19 19:22, Ben Cotton wrote: >> I want to publicly express my appreciation for Miro's efforts to >> enforce our policy and his willingness to take the hits from people >> being rightly upset at its flaws. I also appreciate that the

Re: Let's revisit the FTBFS policy

2019-08-14 Thread Miro Hrončok
On 14. 08. 19 19:43, Miro Hrončok wrote: E.g. when we release Fedora 32, Fedora 28 is already EOL for 5 months. It is IMHO reasonable to expect the packages were rebuilt at least on Fedora 29. Oh. When we release Fedora 32, Fedora 29 is already EOL for 5 months. But the rest checks out. So

Re: Let's revisit the FTBFS policy

2019-08-14 Thread Pavel Valena
- Original Message - > From: "Miro Hrončok" > To: devel@lists.fedoraproject.org > Sent: Wednesday, August 14, 2019 7:43:13 PM > Subject: Re: Let's revisit the FTBFS policy > > On 14. 08. 19 19:22, Ben Cotton wrote: > > I want to publicly express

Re: Let's revisit the FTBFS policy

2019-08-14 Thread Miro Hrončok
On 14. 08. 19 19:22, Ben Cotton wrote: I want to publicly express my appreciation for Miro's efforts to enforce our policy and his willingness to take the hits from people being rightly upset at its flaws. I also appreciate that the community has done a good job of understanding that the policy

Re: Let's revisit the FTBFS policy

2019-08-14 Thread Ben Cotton
On Wed, Aug 14, 2019 at 1:31 PM Adam Williamson wrote: > > I actually think the consequences of the revival of the old policy have > been fine. We are throwing out tons of cruft. Occasionally we find > something very crufty yet important: this is a *good* outcome of the > process. It alerts us to

Re: Let's revisit the FTBFS policy

2019-08-14 Thread Adam Williamson
On Wed, 2019-08-14 at 13:22 -0400, Ben Cotton wrote: > I want to publicly express my appreciation for Miro's efforts to > enforce our policy and his willingness to take the hits from people > being rightly upset at its flaws. I also appreciate that the community > has done a good job of

Re: Let's revisit the FTBFS policy

2019-08-14 Thread Ben Cotton
I want to publicly express my appreciation for Miro's efforts to enforce our policy and his willingness to take the hits from people being rightly upset at its flaws. I also appreciate that the community has done a good job of understanding that the policy is the problem and not making it a

Re: Let's revisit the FTBFS policy

2019-08-14 Thread Jason L Tibbitts III
> "FW" == Florian Weimer writes: FW> Debian treats FTBFS bugs as release-critical. They either have to FW> be fixed, or the package gets removed from the release. However, FW> this is not an automated process. Of course, Debian works on a slightly different release schedule, so it's not

Re: Let's revisit the FTBFS policy

2019-08-14 Thread Jason L Tibbitts III
> "MH" == Miro Hrončok writes: MH> If we stop here, the current "setting to ASSIGNED to stop this" MH> remains a problem. Let's think about why this is perceived as a problem. The maintainer has performed an affirmative act that shows they noticed. Can't we just accept that as some

Re: Let's revisit the FTBFS policy

2019-08-14 Thread Martin Kolman
On Wed, 2019-08-14 at 14:55 +0200, Vít Ondruch wrote: > Dne 14. 08. 19 v 14:23 Miro Hrončok napsal(a): > > Hello. > > > > Recently, a couple hundred packages were retired from rawhide (Fedora > > 31 at that time) based on the Fedora Failed to Build From Source > > Policy [1]. From various

Re: Let's revisit the FTBFS policy

2019-08-14 Thread Vít Ondruch
Dne 14. 08. 19 v 15:20 Miro Hrončok napsal(a): > On 14. 08. 19 14:55, Vít Ondruch wrote: >> I think it would be probably enough to stop here. Orphaned packages gets >> garbage collected ATM. The step 4 was a bit unexpected for packages with >> bugs in ASSIGNED state especially. > > If we stop

Re: Let's revisit the FTBFS policy

2019-08-14 Thread Miro Hrončok
On 14. 08. 19 14:55, Vít Ondruch wrote: I think it would be probably enough to stop here. Orphaned packages gets garbage collected ATM. The step 4 was a bit unexpected for packages with bugs in ASSIGNED state especially. If we stop here, the current "setting to ASSIGNED to stop this" remains a

Re: Let's revisit the FTBFS policy

2019-08-14 Thread Vít Ondruch
Dne 14. 08. 19 v 14:23 Miro Hrončok napsal(a): > Hello. > > Recently, a couple hundred packages were retired from rawhide (Fedora > 31 at that time) based on the Fedora Failed to Build From Source > Policy [1]. From various reactions over several threads it seems this > policy is not ideal. This

Re: Let's revisit the FTBFS policy

2019-08-14 Thread Florian Weimer
* Miro Hrončok: > Recently, a couple hundred packages were retired from rawhide (Fedora > 31 at that time) based on the Fedora Failed to Build From Source > Policy [1]. From various reactions over several threads it seems this > policy is not ideal. This is an attempt to collect feedback and make