DevHeads.net

Automation ignores FTBFS guidelines

Hi all,

So I've just been notified that tolua++ has been retired, which is a
dependency of one of my packages (fawkes). BZ:
<a href="https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1736911" title="https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1736911">https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1736911</a>

This would have been fine (as no action has been taken), if the
automation had actually followed the FTBFS guidelines [1]. But it
hasn't, in many ways:
1. "If an FTBFS or FTI bug remains in the NEW state for at least 1 week,
any concerned party can set a NEEDINFO for the maintainer to respond and
send an e-mail reminder with the Bugzilla link to
<component_name>- ... at fedoraproject dot org, cc’ing the devel mailing
list (so there is a public record) and commenting on the bug about doing
so."
I did not see such an email on devel. Also NEEDINFO was set on Sep 22,
~10 weeks after retirement.
2. "If the bug remains in NEW state for at least another 4 weeks after
the second e-mail and comment (= at least 8 weeks in total), the package
will be orphaned. Orphaning can be requested via a releng issue."
There was no email at all, at least not to devel, or the maintainers of
the dependencies of tolua++.
3. "The normal Orphaned package that needs new maintainers procedure
will be followed for the packages orphaned in this way, leading to their
retirement if nobody adopts them."
This did not happen either. In particular, it was never announced that
the package was orphaned.
4. In fact, as far as I can tell, the package was never orphaned, but
directly retired.

To put it differently, the guidelines were completely ignored. The
package was retired 6 days after the initial FTBFS bug, without any
announcement. This is in stark contrast to the 14 weeks mentioned in the
guidelines. To add to this, the retirement isn't even mentioned in the
bug report. It just silently happened.

The comment "your package has not been built successfully in 31. Action
is required from you" isn't helping either, as the package has long been
retired at that time.

I understand and support that FTBFS packages are retired, but this is
not the way this should work. There was no way I could have heard about
the issue in time. It effectively requires me to become co-maintainer on
every package that I depend on. Clearly not something I want to do.

So can we please make sure that guidelines apply to everybody, also and
especially to scripts?

Thanks,
Till

[1]
<a href="https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/fesco/Fails_to_build_from_source_Fails_to_install/" title="https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/fesco/Fails_to_build_from_source_Fails_to_install/">https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/fesco/Fails_to_build_from_source_Fa...</a>

Comments

Re: Automation ignores FTBFS guidelines

By =?UTF-8?B?TWlyb... at 09/22/2019 - 09:40

On 22. 09. 19 14:37, Till Hofmann wrote:
I've closed this bug because it "was already retired", not because of that bug.

The package was actually retired more than a month ago in here:

<a href="https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1676145#c12" title="https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1676145#c12">https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1676145#c12</a>

Based on this rule:

"7. A week before the mass branching, any packages which still have open FTBFS
bugs from the previous release will be retired."

No, they were not ignored at all.

Yes, that's why I closed the bugzilla. See <a href="https://pagure.io/releng/issue/8478" title="https://pagure.io/releng/issue/8478">https://pagure.io/releng/issue/8478</a>

They do.

Re: Automation ignores FTBFS guidelines

By Till Hofmann at 09/22/2019 - 10:01

On 9/22/19 3:40 PM, Miro Hrončok wrote:
I see, so the package was already FTBFS in F30. So the F31 FTBFS was
actually a duplicate. It would have helped if it was marked as such, but
I understand that's easier said than done.

You're right, as this was FTBFS in F30 already, it's all good.

So the guidelines allow package retirement without any announcement on
devel. That's certainly unexpected, at least to me. I also don't think
this is a good idea, because maintainers of packages that depend on the
retired package are still clueless until it's too late. Or do they get a
separate notification?

I still find it somewhat inconsistent that basically every rule in the
FTBFS guidelines is about notifying people, but (7) allows retirement
without any prequisites other than being FTBFS for 2 releases -- no
announcement, no orphaning.

Kind regards,
Till

Re: Automation ignores FTBFS guidelines

By =?UTF-8?B?TWlyb... at 09/22/2019 - 10:08

On 22. 09. 19 16:01, Till Hofmann wrote:

Yes, I agree. That's why I've started:

<a href="https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/ ... at lists dot fedoraproject.org/thread/NKFYAWL4GWYR37C6XA63JMNBZYEM6BI3/" title="https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/ ... at lists dot fedoraproject.org/thread/NKFYAWL4GWYR37C6XA63JMNBZYEM6BI3/">https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/ ... at lists dot fedoraproject....</a>

Re: Automation ignores FTBFS guidelines

By Till Hofmann at 09/22/2019 - 10:19

On 9/22/19 4:08 PM, Miro Hrončok wrote:
Ah yes, I now remember reading this. I'll add to if I have anything to add.

Apologies for blaming this on the scripts!

Kind regards,
Till

Re: Automation ignores FTBFS guidelines

By =?UTF-8?B?TWlyb... at 09/22/2019 - 09:46

On 22. 09. 19 15:40, Miro Hrončok wrote:
Whether this is a reasonable thing or not has been discussed in:

<a href="https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/ ... at lists dot fedoraproject.org/thread/NKFYAWL4GWYR37C6XA63JMNBZYEM6BI3/" title="https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/ ... at lists dot fedoraproject.org/thread/NKFYAWL4GWYR37C6XA63JMNBZYEM6BI3/">https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/ ... at lists dot fedoraproject....</a>

Re: Automation ignores FTBFS guidelines

By Hans de Goede at 09/22/2019 - 09:01

Hi,

On 22-09-2019 14:37, Till Hofmann wrote:
I've no opinion on whether the process was followed correctly here (I did not look closely
at that part of this email).

But I do have something to say about the specific example used. tolua++ being retired
is not a problem for fawkes, as fawkes depends on compat-tolua++, which is maintained
by me and has NOT been retired.

Regards,

Hans

Re: Automation ignores FTBFS guidelines

By Till Hofmann at 09/22/2019 - 09:13

On 9/22/19 3:01 PM, Hans de Goede wrote:
Thanks for pointing this out! I assumed compat-tolua++ was a subpackage
of tolua++ (I hadn't actually looked at the spec file yet).