On Tue, Jun 05, 2007 at 11:23:12AM +0100, Jonathan Underwood wrote: > On 05/06/07, Axel Thimm <Axel.Thimm@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >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. > > Quite - in this case it seems to me that CentOS did things "right" and > did the full rebuild that RHEL should have had. I think CentOS is trying to make an exact compatible clone of RHEL including all bugs etc. So they do want to recreate the same same build environment the RHEl packages where built in, but unfortunately this is sometimes not even possible due to gcc being either internal or already obsoleted by a newer update (because the gcc used when building these RHEL packages is not the one on the GA). > Isn't this a really convincing argument for full rebuild testing of > Fedora? I think reproducability is a must everywhere, so yes, it is. -- Axel.Thimm at ATrpms.net
Attachment:
pgpmpvebQaRu5.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
