On Wed, Feb 18, 2009 at 10:59:12AM -0600, Matthew Woehlke wrote: > Jesse Keating wrote: >> On Tue, 2009-02-17 at 20:42 -0500, Jon Masters wrote: >>> And what will happen when something wants a static >>> library file to link against? >> >> This one is a little bit more interesting, perhaps everything that is >> static should get a second rebuild pass. Of course, now I'm going to >> want a good programmatic way of discovering what is statically compiled, >> preferably without having to look at the binaries themselves. > > It needs more resources, but the obvious solution is to do what gcc > does... rebuild *everything* twice, and remove from the rebuild list > things that produced an identical package. Then do a third pass, and > continue until nothing changes. (Probably it will be necessary to scan > the rebuild list between subsequent packages to cull things that are > only "changed" due to timestamps and the like.) > > This should catch everything where a rebuilt dependency caused the > resulting package to be different. The simple act of rebuilding the packages will change them. You'll always get a difference, given that the RPM header will change and the Release number will be bumped. Even ignoring the RPM parts, various applications do things like embed dates or buildhosts or other build time information into the binaries, and will differ as a result of that. josh -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
