On Tue, Jun 05, 2007 at 07:11:35AM -0400, Jesse Keating wrote: > On Tuesday 05 June 2007 07:04:17 Axel Thimm wrote: > > Why not? Care to detail this? > > It's a simple timing issue. Given you have a build chain 4 packages deep. > > First rebuild will rebuild the first package, and all other 3 packages against > the old build of the first package. > > Second rebuild will rebuild the first package again, and all other 3 packages > against the first rebuild of the first package. > > That still leaves packages 3 and 4 as not being rebuilt against the resultant > rebuilt of package 2 against rebuild of package 1. You'd have to either > rebuild 4 times, or insert delays into the rebuild so that 1 lands in > buildroot before 2, then 2 lands in buildroot before 3, so on and so forth. > > This is just one example where automated rebuild, while it does some good, > doesn't really fix all the problems you think it would. It just hides them > further under the rug under the assumption "But we did a full rebuild, > everything should just build fine now..." when in reality your full rebuild > didn't accomplish that, it just gave you a warm and (false) fuzzy feeling. No, you also got it wrong. I'm not talking rebuilding from scratch, but against rawhide. That's what all mass-rebuild were like until now. Both rebuilds will succeed (unless there is a bug in the package and that would be good, so we can fix it): the first one will have buildrequires from FC6->F7 since that's what the repo looked like, the second will have fresh buildrequires from the previous pass. No need to look at N-folded-recusion. -- Axel.Thimm at ATrpms.net
Attachment:
pgp7J1PKtzwH8.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
