On Mon, 2007-06-04 at 14:15 -0400, Jesse Keating wrote:
> On Monday 04 June 2007 13:45:07 Tom "spot" Callaway wrote:
> > 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.
>
> How would a mass rebuild be any different? A mass rebuild is likely to go
> through in either ls ordering or python hash ordering....
That needn't be the case. Packages could be built in a "from the ground
up" order beginning with what's by default in the buildroots (i.e. what
doesn't need to be build-required). This gets only ambiguous with cyclic
build-dependencies in which case we'd have to fall back to something
else (ls ordering, python hash ordering or even "bug the release
engineers and let them decide" ;-)).
Nils
--
Nils Philippsen / Red Hat / nphilipp@xxxxxxxxxx
"Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary
Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety." -- B. Franklin, 1759
PGP fingerprint: C4A8 9474 5C4C ADE3 2B8F 656D 47D8 9B65 6951 3011
--
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
