rel-eng March 2010

rel-eng@lists.fedoraproject.org

3 participants
144 discussions

#1107: auto-cleanup rawhide trees
by Fedora Release Engineering 29 Apr '15

29 Apr '15

#1107: auto-cleanup rawhide trees -------------------------+-------------------------------------------------- Reporter: notting | Owner: rel-eng(a)lists.fedoraproject.org Type: enhancement | Status: new Milestone: | Component: koji Keywords: | -------------------------+-------------------------------------------------- Rawhide tree expiry is manual at the moment, unless I missed something. -- Ticket URL: <https://fedorahosted.org/rel-eng/ticket/1107> Fedora Release Engineering <http://fedorahosted.org/rel-eng> Release Engineering for the Fedora Project

1 8

#2244: How to mass branch s390utils and other non-primary arch packages
by Fedora Release Engineering 17 Jul '13

17 Jul '13

#2244: How to mass branch s390utils and other non-primary arch packages --------------------+------------------------------------------------------- Reporter: toshio | Owner: rel-eng(a)lists.fedoraproject.org Type: task | Status: new Milestone: | Component: koji Keywords: | --------------------+------------------------------------------------------- This is a rel-eng decision that I'll need input on. Currently the packagedb branches packages which are not blocked in koji. Some packages which are not built for the primary arch are blocked in koji -- s390utils for instance. Does the packagedb need to whitelist these or should the packages be unblocked as they are discovered? -- Ticket URL: <https://fedorahosted.org/rel-eng/ticket/2244> Fedora Release Engineering <http://fedorahosted.org/rel-eng> Release Engineering for the Fedora Project

1 5

#2025: Too hard to build dependent packages in stable
by Fedora Release Engineering 17 Oct '12

17 Oct '12

#2025: Too hard to build dependent packages in stable -------------------------+-------------------------------------------------- Reporter: hadess | Owner: rel-eng(a)lists.fedoraproject.org Type: enhancement | Status: new Milestone: | Component: koji Keywords: | -------------------------+-------------------------------------------------- It's too complicated, human-dependent, and time-consuming to build interdependent package updates in stable releases. Two cases: * gstreamer and gstreamer-plugins-base are released at the same time, and so are pre-releases of those. They soft-depend on each other (gstreamer can be updated on its own). It's currently not possible for me to offer both pre-releases of gstreamer and gsteamer-plugins-base without either: 1. asking for a package to be tagged into the build roots 2. pushing gstreamer into stable (takes a few days at best), and push the gstreamer-plugins-base package separately * gnome-bluetooth and gnome-phone-manager, where I need to ask for gnome- bluetooth to be pushed into the buildroot tree. Sometimes that just doesn't work (as could have been seen in http://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/F11/FEDORA-2009-7140 / https://fedorahosted.org/rel-eng/ticket/1945 and http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/buildinfo?buildID=112091 ) -- Ticket URL: <https://fedorahosted.org/rel-eng/ticket/2025> Fedora Release Engineering <http://fedorahosted.org/rel-eng> Release Engineering for the Fedora Project

1 2

[Fedora Release Engineering] #859: updates-newkey doesn't have group_gz member
by Fedora Release Engineering 26 Jan '12

26 Jan '12

#859: updates-newkey doesn't have group_gz member -------------------------------------+-------------------------------------- Reporter: james(a)fedoraproject.org | Owner: rel-eng(a)lists.fedoraproject.org Type: task | Status: new Milestone: | Component: koji Keywords: | -------------------------------------+-------------------------------------- I assume the createrepo instance that generates the Fedora 9 updates- newkey/updates-testing-newkey is the RHEL-5 version? Can we change this to be the Fedora 9 version so that we'll get group_gz as well as group (ie. comps.xml.gz as well as comps.xml). This makes for much less data to download, to get group information. -- Ticket URL: <https://fedorahosted.org/rel-eng/ticket/859> Fedora Release Engineering <http://fedorahosted.org/rel-eng> Release Engineering for the Fedora Project

1 12

#3565: Please Tag libproxy-0.3.1-4.fc13 for F-13 Beta - default install of libproxy modules
by Fedora Release Engineering 05 May '11

05 May '11

#3565: Please Tag libproxy-0.3.1-4.fc13 for F-13 Beta - default install of libproxy modules ----------------------------+----------------------------------------------- Reporter: kwizart | Owner: rel-eng(a)lists.fedoraproject.org Type: task | Status: new Milestone: Fedora 13 Beta | Component: koji Keywords: | ----------------------------+----------------------------------------------- Hello, I request libproxy-0.3.1-4.fc13 to be tagged as F-13 Beta. This is the last update before the ABI change of the 0.4.0 version that has already appeared in F-14. Here is the Changelog between 0.2.3 and 0.3.1: http://code.google.com/p/libproxy/source/browse/trunk/ChangeLog On a side note, installing libproxy on a default desktop install of F-13 Alpha will, lead to have: libproxy libproxy-bin libproxy-python With this package, the default will lead to have: libproxy And that will be all, as all unneeded dependencies have been dropped as described in: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=537569 Once that said, it would be more valuable to have libproxy-gnome installed as soon as the gnome desktop is selected on install. (1) Upstream advice is to use Rpm's 'Suggests' instead of 'Requires', as requires would imply some circle dependencies. But we don't use Suggests much if possible. So I think it would be better handled by comps for now. (1) Same for: libproxy-kde and KDE desktop libproxy-mozjs and firefox libproxy-webkit and WebKit-gtk libproxy-networkmanager and NetworkManager -- Ticket URL: <https://fedorahosted.org/rel-eng/ticket/3565> Fedora Release Engineering <http://fedorahosted.org/rel-eng> Release Engineering for the Fedora Project

1 4

#3507: Secondary arche only packages need to be unblocked in primary arch koji
by Fedora Release Engineering 08 Nov '10

08 Nov '10

#3507: Secondary arche only packages need to be unblocked in primary arch koji ---------------------+------------------------------------------------------ Reporter: ausil | Owner: rel-eng(a)lists.fedoraproject.org Type: task | Status: new Milestone: | Component: koji Keywords: meeting | ---------------------+------------------------------------------------------ Blocking secondary arch only packages causes two issues 1) they do not get branched at mass branch time 2) they get blocked in secondary arches when they sync blocked packages I recommend that we unblock them on the primary arches. -- Ticket URL: <https://fedorahosted.org/rel-eng/ticket/3507> Fedora Release Engineering <http://fedorahosted.org/rel-eng> Release Engineering for the Fedora Project

1 6

#1909: Clarify final freeze policy
by Fedora Release Engineering 05 Nov '10

05 Nov '10

#1909: Clarify final freeze policy ----------------------+----------------------------------------------------- Reporter: jkeating | Owner: rel-eng(a)lists.fedoraproject.org Type: task | Status: new Milestone: | Component: other Keywords: | ----------------------+----------------------------------------------------- https://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-test-list/2009-May/msg00590.html -- Ticket URL: <https://fedorahosted.org/rel-eng/ticket/1909> Fedora Release Engineering <http://fedorahosted.org/rel-eng> Release Engineering for the Fedora Project

1 3

#3561: metadata_expire=7d in branched Fedora repo files
by Fedora Release Engineering 17 Aug '10

17 Aug '10

#3561: metadata_expire=7d in branched Fedora repo files ---------------------+------------------------------------------------------ Reporter: notting | Owner: rel-eng(a)lists.fedoraproject.org Type: defect | Status: new Milestone: | Component: other Keywords: | ---------------------+------------------------------------------------------ We put: metadata_expire=7d in the 'main' fedora repo files. This works great with the release tree, as it doesn't change. This doesn't work well with the branched repo, however, as we push it every day. -- Ticket URL: <https://fedorahosted.org/rel-eng/ticket/3561> Fedora Release Engineering <http://fedorahosted.org/rel-eng> Release Engineering for the Fedora Project

1 1

#3239: deltarpm missing for eclipse update (F12) - 3.5.1-20 => -21
by Fedora Release Engineering 09 Aug '10

09 Aug '10

#3239: deltarpm missing for eclipse update (F12) - 3.5.1-20 => -21 --------------------+------------------------------------------------------- Reporter: bbaetz | Owner: rel-eng(a)lists.fedoraproject.org Type: defect | Status: new Milestone: | Component: other Keywords: | --------------------+------------------------------------------------------- An update to eclipse was pushed today, however the eclipse packages don't have the appropriate drpms available. A drpm is available from the 'base' eclipse-jdt-3.5.1-4.fc12, but not from the last update to -20 (https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/F12/FEDORA-2009-11860) For example, I had eclipse-jdt-3.5.1-20.fc12.x86_64.rpm installed. /fedora/linux/updates/12/x86_64/drpms/ on my local mirror has eclipse- jdt-3.5.1-4.fc12_3.5.1-21.fc12.x86_64.drpm but no other relevant file. I can generate a drpm locally using makedeltarpm, and apply it to the koji (unsigned) -20 package to get an identical package. This means that I have to download a 24M package rather than a 94k drpm. (Similarly for the 27M eclipse-platform package) Some packages (eg NetworkManager) do have a drpm from both the initial version and the previous updated version. I've seen this happen before (missing drpm) with other packages (internet caps in .au means I notice large package updates), but haven't previously looked into why. -- Ticket URL: <https://fedorahosted.org/rel-eng/ticket/3239> Fedora Release Engineering <http://fedorahosted.org/rel-eng> Release Engineering for the Fedora Project

1 2

#2555: handle invalid build ID in sigulsign_unsigned
by Fedora Release Engineering 26 May '10

26 May '10

#2555: handle invalid build ID in sigulsign_unsigned ----------------------+----------------------------------------------------- Reporter: jkeating | Owner: rel-eng(a)lists.fedoraproject.org Type: defect | Status: new Milestone: | Component: other Keywords: | ----------------------+----------------------------------------------------- Right now the whole process dies if one of the n-v-rs don't match. We should handle that better. -- Ticket URL: <https://fedorahosted.org/rel-eng/ticket/2555> Fedora Release Engineering <http://fedorahosted.org/rel-eng> Release Engineering for the Fedora Project

1 2

Jump to page:

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

2009

2008

rel-eng March 2010