On Fri, Jan 16, 2015 at 11:19:13AM +0100, Dridi Boukelmoune wrote: > On Fri, Jan 16, 2015 at 10:08 AM, Marcin Juszkiewicz > <mjuszkiewicz@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > GCC change may affect binaries which will generate other output which > > will change noarch packages. > > It shouldn't change a program's behavior, unless the program itself is > relying on undefined behavior. Either way I would call that a bug. Agreed. In principle, any package could affect the build of any other package (e.g. bash version could realistically influence build results), but we ignore this. As you say, something like this would happen only if there was some (significant) bug. Those bugs are dealt with individually when detected. The same is true for the compiler version influencing the behaviour of compiled programs. This might happen, but very rarely. Generally updating the compiler should only result in changes in behaviour only when the program was buggy to begin with and relied on undefined behaviour, bad memory access, or similar. On Fri, Jan 16, 2015 at 09:35:50AM +0100, Petr Spacek wrote: > Another advantage could be mass-rebuild simplification. Maybe we could save > machine and man-time by not rebuilding noarch packages because of gcc rebase > or something like that. +1 Only rebuilding packages based on explicit BR would be a nice optimization for mass rebuilds. > Maybe this can be somehow generalized: If we had a database with mapping: > SRPM -> all packages in build root (implicit and explicit BuildRequires) > we could somehow limit mass rebuilds to packages affected by latest changes. Zbyszek -- devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
