Mailinglist Archive: opensuse-bugs (6588 mails)

< Previous Next >
[Bug 1142975] rubygem-public_suffix 4.0.0 breaks dependencies of rubygem-addressable
  • From: bugzilla_noreply@xxxxxxxxxx
  • Date: Fri, 26 Jul 2019 10:38:29 +0000
  • Message-id: <bug-1142975-21960-lxsf3JPOWj@http.bugzilla.suse.com/>
http://bugzilla.suse.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1142975
http://bugzilla.suse.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1142975#c3

--- Comment #3 from Tim Hardeck <thardeck@xxxxxxxx> ---
(In reply to Dominique Leuenberger from comment #2)
(In reply to Tim Hardeck from comment #1)
This is not a machinery issue.

I think it is not good that updates of packages can be released to
Tumbleweed which break already existing packages. This happened a couple of
times in the past for Ruby gems.

It is the nature of a rolling distro to receive frequent updates - and it's
a balancing act to allow breakage vs getting releases at all. In a perfect
world, I'd agree, all packages would work at any moment. In reality, we are
far away from that - there are currently > 250 failing packages in
openSUSE:Factory.
Thanks for the explanation.

Can we not verify for eachsubmit request if there are dependency issues with a
bot?
Could we not have a script generating a dependency graph once per Factory
release and then we use this data for all new submit requests to see if they
break something.

So in this case the gem update would have been only accepted if there was an
additional public_suffix rubygem submit for version 3 or if the addressable gem
was submitted in a version which can handle the new public_suffix.


The only 'guarantee' for non-breaking packages are the ones in the rings. We
could increase the priority of machinery into the rings - But that requires
buy-in from all the maintainers in the stack below machinery, as all
build-deps and runtime-deps need to be raised to rings as well. Depending on
the number of packages and the build time of said packages, this can in plus
have negative impact on the TW release throughput in general.
No, that is not necessary I think but thank you.

--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
< Previous Next >
References