On Tue, Jun 05, 2007 at 11:05:19AM +0100, Jonathan Underwood wrote: > On 05/06/07, Ralf Corsepius <rc040203@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > >Well, I can only reiterate what I said before: IMO, "full rebuilds" are > >a hoax blending yourself unless they are performed in "sorted order" > >and a PITA to maintainers unless they are performed automatically. > > Aside: presumably CentOS and Scientific Linux etc have solved the full > rebuild in order problem. Perhaps it's worth looking at their > buildsystem. Oh, that's touchy subject. Not because of CentOS and SL, but because RHEL is all but self-hosting. Some parts have been taken from FC6 (~15%), so they have been built in some FC6 environment, others from not anymore existing gcc compilers (or internal ones). I talked to CentOS last week and there are cases where the CentOS kernel oopses, when the RHEL one doesn't and vice-versa. So RHEL and clones are a bad example when it comes to talking about (re)builds. I think Fedora can do far better than this. -- Axel.Thimm at ATrpms.net
Attachment:
pgpuNDnXu7tCG.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
