On 04.06.2007 17:28, Jesse Keating wrote: > 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. +1 from my side as well 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
