On Mon, 2007-06-04 at 17:26 +0200, Michael Schwendt wrote: > On Mon, 04 Jun 2007 11:59:23 +0200, Hans de Goede wrote: > > > Unfortunately this cycle we haven't done a mass rebuild, but > > 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. +1. /B -- Brian Pepple <bpepple@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> gpg --keyserver pgp.mit.edu --recv-keys 810CC15E BD5E 6F9E 8688 E668 8F5B CBDE 326A E936 810C C15E
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
-- 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
