On Tue, Jan 26, 2021 at 09:52:59AM -0500, Alexander Scheel wrote: > > Well, I understand your sentiment against mass spec changes, but there are > > cases, where it currently cannot be avoided (e.-g. when a targeted mass > > rebuild > > is needed for a soname bump). W.g. when we update Python from 3.9 to 3.10 we > > will need to rebuild (close to) 4000 packages. How are we supposed to check > > what > > the latest package in rawhide is and how do I act accordingly if it is not > > dist-git HEAD? (Also, mass rebuild.) > > Just responding to this one point (and in light of the parent's post > as well).... > > ...is there a way that the Python bump can be done alongside the usual > (and pre-scheduled) mass-rebuild of Fedora packages?
No. The Python bump is not a straightforward rebuild, because many packages fail and need to be updated. This takes months and Fedora developers cooperate with many upstreams to deliver fixes. If we tried to do it alongside the mass rebuild, the result would be a massive ftbfs clusterfuck. > I bring this up because, for a week, dogtag-pki was FTBFS in Rawhide > (and, your scripts caught it) but I couldn't understand _why_: my > local builds were succeeding just fine, it was only remote > scratch/non-scratch builds that were failing. It turns out to be a > change in my local pki-core (which was installed), but which wasn't > yet updated in the dependency in Fedora. Eh, this sounds like you should (sometimes) use mock for local builds. Zbyszek _______________________________________________ devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
