On Sat, 26 Feb 2005 12:38:08 -0500, seth vidal wrote: > >> If you want to do them by hand that's fine by me. I'm not sure what > >> we're disagreeing about. Do you want to do a mass rebuild as a test now? > > > >I want to avoid [more] chaos if that's possible, please. > > > What's chaotic right now? Chaos at several fronts: a sudden mass-rebuild from a non-ready CVS for pre-extras, rushed attempts at trimming down core, uncoordinated package submissions, potentially orphaned packages (maybe even a few more), not every packager has CVS access, rebuilds without build requests (e.g. PPC builds of xv or unreviewed packages). I think coordination could be better. > >It is not clear to me what you have planned. Do you want every individual > >package owner to bump release versions in current "devel" tree on some day > >between now and FC4T1? > > > I didn't have much of anything planned. We wanted the branch for extras > so people could work on new versions of changed build deps due to fc4. > The goal was to make extras cvs match core cvs so that people could > follow 'development' sanely. And that means more chaos, because packages have build requirements and hence depend on other packages to be ready, too. > >At fedora.us we've had mass-rebuilds for the first or second test release, > >and the dist tag made a release bump unnecessary. > > > Right but if you read the packaging guidelines, I'm not sure we're quite > there yet for those bits of infrastructure. I didn't mean that. I don't like dist tags, and they don't add value unless you rebuild each and every update for all distributions. -snip- > does that make sense to you? No, it doesn't. Sorry. It doesn't answer my earlier questions. It doesn't answer when and whether to mass-rebuild.
