On Monday 04 June 2007 11:26:37 Michael Schwendt wrote: > It's not unfortunate. It's great that packages, which work in FC6, don't > need a rebuild and continue to work in F7. For several binaries the > opposite is true, and you can install fc7 packages also for fc6. I don't > like superfluous rebuilds or rebuilds which result in cosmetic changes > only, such as an updated dist tag. For every rebuild there ought to be a > good reason and a visible and worthwhile goal for the package, plus a > packager who verifies the build results. > > There are problems in some packages, which are not fixed by automatic > rebuilds and which are not found by automatic rebuilds either. Instead > of a mass-rebuild I'd prefer a roadmap, so that after some clear and > strict freeze there won't be any unexpected modifications anymore, such > as API/ABI breaks. Planning-safety for packagers to know till when to > prepare their packages. > > All the testing with rawhide and test releases is void when we test > static packages, which are rebuilt automatically just for fun, and > shortly after the final release of the distribution, packagers get > active and push major version upgrades and stuff that breaks > dependencies. +10. Thank you Micheal for putting my thoughts into a clear email. -- Jesse Keating Release Engineer: Fedora
Attachment:
pgpX9Slk9CLzn.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
