On Fri, Feb 10, 2006 at 01:17:05PM -0500, Jeremy Katz wrote: > On Fri, 2006-02-10 at 19:06 +0100, Pozsar Balazs wrote: > > On Fri, Feb 10, 2006 at 07:57:44AM -0500, Build System wrote: > > [...] > > > - rebuilt for new gcc4.1 snapshot and glibc changes > > [...] > > > > I am wondering long ago about these changelog entries... Why are > > rebuilds mentioned in the changelogs? Strictly speaking, these are not > > changes, at least not to the .src.rpm. > > Because otherwise, if I have foo-1.2.1-1 installed and see foo-1.2.1-2, > how do I know what changed without diffing src.rpms? That's what the > entire purpose of the changelog is. If foo-1.2.1-1.src.rpm is rebuilt, it could be versioned as foo-1.2.1-1.1, foo-1.2.1-1.2, foo-1.2.1-1.3 and so on. > > And by the way, I also fail to see why rebuilds are so special. Why > > aren't all packages rebuilt periodically by the build system? > > (Say, once a week or fortnight.) > > I think it can be easily seen that it would be a nice regular qa test, > > and also it would make sure that all gcc/glibc or any other > > library/compiler toolchain element changes/improvements would be > > propageted in regular and short timebase. > > There are more regular builds of everything for testing, but pushing > things out just ends up causing a lot more bandwidth usage than its > worth. Most packages get churned enough in the development tree that > any changes get propagated to packages quickly enough. Is bandwidth really a problem for fedora developers/testers? -- pozsy -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
