On Wed, 23.01.13 20:59, Tom Lane (tgl@xxxxxxxxxx) wrote: > Bruno Wolff III <bruno@xxxxxxxx> writes: > > On Wed, Jan 23, 2013 at 22:38:30 +0100, > > Lennart Poettering <mzerqung@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >> I'd propose instead that mass branching goes away entirely, and the > >> "master" branch too. > > > This is kind of how things work now at a repo level. There are a couple of > > problems though. Sometimes the changes have ripple effects and other packages > > also need to get rebuilt for rawhide. The other is that fixes in > > updates-testing aren't inherited into rawhide. During freezes this can leave > > rawhide broken for a long time. > > There's a pretty fundamental reason why Lennart's proposal doesn't work: > even if a given package is source-wise identical between F-n and F-n+1, > that doesn't mean it would be binary-identical. Either the packages it > depends on or the build toolchain might well have changed since F-n was > split off. Well, I fully acknowledge that haveing the same sources for the distros should not imply to have the same binaries. However, that's really something to solve on the build scripts level. Or in other words, as soon as I type "fedpkg build" my package should be built on all newer distributions too (except of course there's an explicit branch for that). For a very static package this would even allow people to never bother with branching again. You could stay forever on your old branch, and with a single "fedpkg" built you could update the three supported distros all at once. Lennart -- Lennart Poettering - Red Hat, Inc. -- devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
