On Monday 10 August 2009, Bill Nottingham wrote: > Ville Skyttä (ville.skytta@xxxxxx) said: > > I ran a few scripts on the CVS tree and will commit the resulting > > improvements in a few days to devel and rebuild changed packages if ACL's > > allow. Let me know if you for some reason don't want your packages > > touched (affected package lists below). > > If I may ask - is there a reason to do rebuilds? Given that there's > no functional differences, isn't having the changes in CVS for the > next rebuild 'good enough'? I have some past experience in people accidentally/carelessly overwriting changes that have been in CVS only. Actually doing the builds was intended as an additional safeguard against that, as well as one for immediately catching problems I may have caused (there shouldn't be any, but I managed to create (and fix) one so far). But I'll resort to just tagging changes in CVS and doing builds as local or scratch ones for the remaining packages, hopefully that's enough. > > Packages that may have a better upstream tarball available: > > ----------------------------------------------------------- > > (not necessarily all of these will be touched) > > ... > > > lzma > > ... > > I'd assume this would not be changed, for bootstrapping reasons. Yep, I considered that, but ended up including it in the list of possibly-to- be-touched packages for two reasons: there are already bootstrapping problems (coreutils, gzip, rpm etc etc and I'm not aware of documentation what are the expected issues/special cases that one should take care of when bootstrapping Fedora), and I think it's quite likely that rpm will start unpacking lzma tarballs with xz soon[0] so this wouldn't actually be a bootstrap problem much longer. But I'll take a 2nd look when I get this far. [0] http://rpm.org/ticket/85 -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
