Josh Boyer wrote:
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.
Obviously you'd need a way to exclude these differences.
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.
Of course. That's why, if you read *all* of my previous message, I said
"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."
--
Matthew
Please do not quote my e-mail address unobfuscated in message bodies.
--
"Nobody expects the traditional Bourne shell!"
--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
