On Thu, Jun 21, 2018 at 07:36:30AM -0700, Laura Abbott wrote: > On 06/21/2018 01:50 AM, Daniel P. Berrangé wrote: > > The kernel change that introduced the i686 build problem was just a > > rebase between 2 arbitrary pre-release git snapshots. I don't really > > a compelling justification to rebase to a known broken snapshot, > > without allowing time for x86 SIG to resolve it first. AFAIK there > > was no prior warning or request for help - i686 was just disabled > > immediately and other package maintainers left to deal with the > > consequences of broken deps. > > > A more pragmatic approach would have been to report the problem to the > > x86 SIG and then *not* do the rebase for some reasonable period of time > > (perhaps 1 week grace period), to allow for the problem to be addressed. > > Only disable the i686 build if there is no solution is forthcoming, thus > > avoiding causing this pain for a whole chain of packages/maintainers in > > Fedora. > > > > > > I'll admit to not realizing just how many problems disabling this > would cause so I do apologize for that. This came in during the > merge window when we really want to be getting things out to test > so it seemed worth it to just disable it and move on. > > > Having said all this, the message about brokenness on x86 SIG mailing > > list doesn't appear to be treated with the urgency I think it needs, > > givin the ripple effect it has from a critical path package. There were > > a few messages the day after it was reported, and then nothing until > > Wednesday. > > > > The silence on the mailing list is an example of why I didn't try > asking first before rebasing. I know there are a few people who are > very passionate about i686 but the fact of the matter is the response > rate for actual problems has been very low. If someone had responded > with "this will be fixed by date X" I would have been willing to > revert and wait but that's a big part of the issue: nobody is driving > or setting direction. If someone had even told me "Talk to person X > instead of just the mailing list" I would have done that as well. > > Thorsten Leemhuis also pointed out this problem has been going > on for a while https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1592374#c1 > > > > For a package that is critical path like the kernel, I'd expect this > > to be a top priority item to resolve with immediate effect because of > > the broad impact it has on other maintainers. Maybe this has been > > happening in the background, with no activity visible on the mailing > > list, if so I apologize in advance. > > > > I encourage you to file a ticket with FESCO.
I was hoping this mail would generate some more discussion perhaps with other ideas than I've come up with. If there's continued silence and i686 kernel doesn't get fixed soon, I'll file ticket with FESCO asking for i686 arch to be removed from main koji and relegated to a secondary koji instance, so i686 doesn't block maintainers going forward... Regards, Daniel -- |: https://berrange.com -o- https://www.flickr.com/photos/dberrange :| |: https://libvirt.org -o- https://fstop138.berrange.com :| |: https://entangle-photo.org -o- https://www.instagram.com/dberrange :| _______________________________________________ devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org/message/QVHZLD57W7TKKN2CZOSDXQATQPBL2MQC/
