On Mon, May 28, 2018 at 02:16:43PM +0200, Till Maas wrote: > Hi, > > On Mon, May 28, 2018 at 01:53:28PM +0200, Jiri Vanek wrote: > > > The second one is pretty strong one. Does it incue system packages too? If > > so, note that it can be hard to adapt some packages to new GCC or (in > > future) new JDK11 in short interval of two mass rebuilds. > > The short interval is usually six months (not that short) and I guess if > an important package cannot be rebuilt because of a new GCC or JDK, we > need a compatibility package to make sure the package can still be > built. Yep, 6+ months is not short. I don't think that having non-buildable packages serves the distribution well. Our primary role is to provide bug fixes, and in particular to provide security fixes _quickly_. If a package does not build, it's better to not distribute it as a part of a release, to make the situation clear to users, and let it return once it's fixed. Having non-building packages is a liability. It's also something that drags the whole distribution down, making it very hard to do any kind of mass change, because most time is spent fighting with unrelated ftbfs. Zbyszek _______________________________________________ devel mailing list -- devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe send an email to devel-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx/message/YGY6NYEZDWHQKSQGFWFMCSADSX7UCZY2/
