On Tue, Apr 17, 2007 at 07:00:39AM -0400, Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 17, 2007 at 10:13:11AM +0200, Axel Thimm wrote:
> > o The choice of what to rebuild or not requires more developer time
> > than fixing broken rebuilds: Currently some heuristics were uses to
> > cherry-pick what to rebuild. This requires a careful examination
> > that if doen properly consumes as much or more developer time than
> > to fix any broken rebuilds. If not done careful, then some
> > dependencies will be missed. For example the current upgrade sees
> > the following changes in the buildtools
> >
> > 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(-)
>
> Even the glibc changes in F7 are mostly glibc internal changes, bugfixes
> and addition of a few new symbols (epoll_wait, sync_file_range,
> strerror_l, __sched_cpucount) and only on PPC a new version for existing
> symbols (pthread_attr_setstack{,size}). So neither gcc nor glibc
> changes necessitate a mass rebuild (and I'm not aware of any huge changes
> in redhat-rpm-config either) at this time and that's why F7 rebuild status
> is so low. GCC 4.2 has been stagnating for 6 months now and we have
> several important things backported anyway in GCC 4.1.x-RH (OpenMP,
> visibility stuff, Java stack, numerous Fortran improvements, many bugfixes,
> ...).
When did these backports happen between 4.1.1-30 and 4.1.2-8 or earlier?
> If gcc, binutils or glibc changes substantially in say F8, we'll
> of course need to do a mass rebuild.
gcc should finally have made it to 4.2 by then.
> I'd note that sometimes it makes sense to rebuild all packages, including
> noarch ones, e.g. when there are significant rpm-build, redhat-rpm-config
> etc. changes that affect all packages.
--
Axel.Thimm at ATrpms.net
Attachment:
pgpPpZWE5GC6N.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
