On Mon, 2007-06-04 at 16:19 +0200, Axel Thimm wrote: > On Mon, Jun 04, 2007 at 11:59:23AM +0200, Hans de Goede wrote: > > Unfortunately this cycle we haven't done a mass rebuild, but for > > now lets assume we would have. Then the build environment for an > > update should be very much like the one in which the original > > package was build. So the chance of introducing regressions > > through build environment changes should be small. (and in my > > experience is small in general anyways). > > I'm for mass rebuilds at freeze time, I also tagged that on this > thread, and I'm glad I see this parallel issue: Just to give an > example of what happens w/o mass rebuilds (and it had to be one of my > packages ... ): > > A rebuild of apt for a minor buglet lead to different names of apt's > library because apt wants to embed glibc's version in its libs, so the > update broke synaptic and anything else that would be dependent on > apt (I'm glad this happens now in the updates-testing repo!). > > The decision of apt to code in glibc' version may be questionable, but > it is there and I had never bumbed over it for the last 3-4 years, so > it was also forgotten by me. But I don't want to have to think about > which package may break if there is no mass-rebuild and a single > rebuild later will find a completely changed environment. > > Just to add some more random rant on the decision to not mass-rebuild: > It was said that the glibc didn't change from FC6 to F7, still stuuf > like fakeroot (or fakechroot, I forget) break due to changes in > chownat and friends (just try installing the FC6 version on F7). Wait... what? Who said glibc didn't change from FC6 to F7? josh -- 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
