On Sun, Apr 08, 2007 at 06:01:07PM +0530, Rahul Sundaram wrote: > The current thinking seems to be to just ignore them* but this is > guaranteed to result in a lot of confusion. Confusion is the lesser evil. The true evil is that the older the package's rebuild date the more different the build environment was, and the more likely a runtime or buildtime discrepancy may pop up. Yes, Matt does frequent rebuilds, but who tests them if they don't make it into rawhide? > I would suggest that we consider rebuilding just to avoid the confusion. > I consider that a good enough "technical reason". The advantage of less > churn in packages is lost quickly since packages receive updates fairly > quickly in general. The big packages have been rebuilt anyway, so there isn't much churn to save. I 100% agree with the rebuild suggestion, if it is not too late to do that. I'd even take a slip into account for that to happen. Also: The reason that there is no mass rebuild done is that the build tools did not change, but FC6 F7 gcc 4.1.1-30 4.1.2-8 glibc 2.5-3 2.5.90-20 binutils 2.17.50.0.3-6 2.17.50.0.12-3 Perhaps the gcc or binutils changes are not that big, but the glibc ones seem to be, e.g. 2.5.90 is the prequel to 2.6 and just checking the API (the glibc-headers) gives: 41 files changed, 297 insertions(+), 220 deletions(-) -- Axel.Thimm at ATrpms.net
Attachment:
pgpltCTLzUeYN.pgp
Description: PGP signature
-- 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
