On Mon, 04 Jun 2007 12:45:07 -0500, Tom "spot" Callaway wrote: > > It would be different if the maintainers were asked to update/rebuild > > their packages prior to a deadline. Only that would request a sign of > > life. > > I thought about this, but it wouldn't ensure proper ordering between > packages. Packager A rebuilds after Package B is done, but changes to > Package A affect Package B's build. It always does. In the past, our mass-rebuilds (whether partial or complete) have never been in the correct order. Scenario during devel cycle: libfoo is updated, built and published app based on libfoo is updated, built and published ... libfoo version upgrade is prepared in cvs, build fails (!) ... some of libfoo's build requirements are upgraded and published, or libfoo's packager has checked in a first set of patches, but no build request yet ... mass-rebuild: app based on libfoo is rebuilt successfully libfoo (the unpublished stuff in cvs) is rebuilt and published successfully => let's hope it breaks the app into many shiny pieces that are spotted easily You might argue that the mass-rebuild would only rebuild published src.rpms and never files from within cvs, oh well, ... -- 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
