Jeffrey C. Ollie wrote:
On Mon, 2006-02-06 at 09:12 -0800, Jesse Keating wrote:
On Mon, 2006-02-06 at 09:03 -0800, Steve G wrote:
Out of curiosity, when the rebuild occurs...does the script use an alphabetical
listing of the packages from a to z. Or does the script try to build the packages
in a somewhat ordered fashion from no dependencies (attr, zlib, bzip, etc) to
more complicated packages that have many dependencies (mkinitrd, pam, slang,
etc.)
Mostly just an a to z thing. The way our current build system works,
every package is installed into the build root, so at this point we're
pretty assured that all build reqs will be met. This is not optimal for
many reasons, and a replacement build system is being developed that
fixes this.
I know that yum/mock/plague doesn't quite fit the bill as a beehive
replacement, but it would be nice if RedHat could work with the
community to extend yum/mock/plague rather than re-inventing the wheel.
I know that one thing that plague could use is a way to easily switch
the plague client between two or more plague servers.
s/RedHat/Red Hat/
Would it make that much of a difference though, or would people still
say the same thing? I think even if Red Hat devoted 2 or more
employees working full time on mock/plague that people would still
say the same thing. Why do I think that? Well for starters, Red Hat
has contributed quite a lot to plague already from what I understand.
I don't know the level of contribution to mock, but it gets heavy
usage internally by individuals, and our next generation buildsystem
is aparently based on mock/plague. What more exactly are you looking
for? I suppose Red Hat could in theory hire every single person who
has contributed to either project... ;o) But then there would
be conspiracy theories about something else right? ;o)
--
Mike A. Harris * Open Source Advocate * http://mharris.ca
Proud Canadian.
--
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
