On Sat, Aug 1, 2020 at 7:17 AM Kevin Kofler <kevin.kofler@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > Neal Gompa wrote: > > I think it does have value, however I think the Red Hat compiler team > > drastically underestimated how much breakage we're willing to tolerate > > for it. > > I think you mean "overestimated" there, not "underestimated", don't you? > Yeah, I meant overestimated here... That's what I get for replying right after waking up. :) > > That's not true. Since Koji 1.18, it's been possible to modify the > > build process by setting simple RPM macros and mock flags in build > > tags. And with the module builds (which operate in chain builds on > > side tags), there is a higher potential for modifications that can > > result in a different set of binaries since it'll generate macros > > packages on demand to do complex build environment changes. > > But the annobin side tag would have the exact same RPM macros and mock flags > set as regular Rawhide. (Ideally, none, because Rawhide should be the > default target of the specfiles.) Modules would of course need their own > annobin side tags (one per module build tag) if you want to cover them too. > Then there'd be the problem of where we'd have the build capacity. We barely have enough for what we do now... -- 真実はいつも一つ！/ Always, there's only one truth! _______________________________________________ devel mailing list -- devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe send an email to devel-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
