On Fri, Sep 22, 2006 at 07:57:40PM -0400, Steve Dickson wrote: > Personally I think we should a bit more flexible and open to consider > adding packages that have very real potential of stopping undetectable > rpm corruption. Call me crazy... but I think thats a good idea verses > sticking to a policy that allows corruption... >From the early days of the rebuilds, in my private rebuild system that I've been publishing results from weekly, I've posted the rpmdiffs for each and every package that built - diff of package as found in the pre-mock rawhide vs what came out of mock. This was done explicitly so folks could see if the mock builds made substantially different packages than the non-mock builds. I know I looked at those files to be sure my own packages were building consistently, I'm sure others did too. This was done in hopes of detecting the "undetectable rpm corruption" issues exactly like this. http://linux.dell.com/files/fedora/FixBuildRequires/ Now that everything from buildsys.fedoraproject.org has been rebuilt using mock, there's probably little benefit to doing so. But there was, and it's trivial do to. Perhaps I should have pointed this out more frequently and loudly, with nagmails etc, but I didn't want to flood people (early on in May-June, I published the results every couple days). -Matt -- Matt Domsch Software Architect Dell Linux Solutions linux.dell.com & www.dell.com/linux Linux on Dell mailing lists @ http://lists.us.dell.com -- Fedora-maintainers mailing list Fedora-maintainers@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-maintainers -- Fedora-maintainers-readonly mailing list Fedora-maintainers-readonly@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-maintainers-readonly
