On 17.04.2007 07:48, Dave Jones wrote:
On Tue, Apr 17, 2007 at 06:58:52AM +0200, Thorsten Leemhuis wrote:
> > 1. In the future we should consider a mass rebuild of all packages
> > around, but no later than test2
> Hmmm, this was discussed in depth at the end of this thread:
> https://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-packaging/2007-April/msg00017.html
> Some people would like to see a mass rebuild, some others are against it.
>
> I'm one of those against it. Reasons:
> - Seems we have quite some users in country were internet bandwidth is
> unreliable and costly. If we mass-rebuild everything each time those
> users have to download a lot of new stuff where nothing changed besides
> the release. that makes Fedora harder to use for them.
And these users are running rawhide ?
Probably not, but they will have to download and install the new
packages that got build during the mass-rebuild when they do the Fedora
(x) -> Fedora (x+1 or x+2) update. Currently packages where nothing
changed in between simply stay installed and no action is needed.
> - the update process gets much longer for each and everyone of us if
> each package has to be downloaded and updated.
> - the packages out in the wild are tested and known to work. Rebuild
> packages have to proof again that everything is fine (which should be
> the case most of the time, but in rare cases isn't)
>
> IOW: The benefits of a mass rebuild *each* devel cycle is IMHO not worth
> the trouble we create for our users. I think a mass rebuild now and then
> when the toolchain (things like gcc or other crucial stuff like rpm,
> python,...) changed massively (round about probably every second or
> third release cycle) is more then enough.
Yeah, I'll agree with that.
Off the top of my head, I can come up with three scenarios where
rebuilds make sense.
- Considerable bugfixes which fix up bad code generation.
- new/enhanced features (such as more FORTIFY_SOURCE improvements)
- new optimisations
(We could even narrow the scope on this one to rebuild just
packages that would show a notable difference. Ie, don't
bother rebuilding fileutils, but do rebuild say, bzip2).
+1
Taking a look at the packages in my f7 mirror, I spot 52 packages
that still have a .fc6 tag, none of which look particularly
"omg, we have to rebuild this". There are also 713 with no %{dist} tag
which include some which we definitly have rebuilt, so it's harder
to figure out which of those got updated and which didn't.
Some numbers:
$ fc6release=$(date -d "24 Oct 2006" +%s); sudo repoquery
--repoid=development-source --repoid=extras-development-source
--archlist="src" -qa --qf '%{buildtime} %{name}' | sort | while read
date name; do [[ ${date} < ${fc6release} ]] && echo ${date} ${name} ||
break ; done | wc -l
1206
$ sudo repoquery --repoid=development-source
--repoid=extras-development-source --archlist="src" -qa --qf
'%{buildtime} %{name}' | wc -l
4073
$ echo $((4073-1206))
2867
IOW: 1206 out of 4073 source packages were not rebuild in devel (both
core and extras) between release of FC6 and now.
CU
thl
--
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
