On Tuesday 17 April 2007 07:00:39 Jakub Jelinek wrote:
> Even the glibc changes in F7 are mostly glibc internal changes, bugfixes
> and addition of a few new symbols (epoll_wait, sync_file_range,
> strerror_l, __sched_cpucount) and only on PPC a new version for existing
> symbols (pthread_attr_setstack{,size}). So neither gcc nor glibc
> changes necessitate a mass rebuild (and I'm not aware of any huge changes
> in redhat-rpm-config either) at this time and that's why F7 rebuild status
> is so low. GCC 4.2 has been stagnating for 6 months now and we have
> several important things backported anyway in GCC 4.1.x-RH (OpenMP,
> visibility stuff, Java stack, numerous Fortran improvements, many bugfixes,
> ...). If gcc, binutils or glibc changes substantially in say F8, we'll
> of course need to do a mass rebuild.
>
> I'd note that sometimes it makes sense to rebuild all packages, including
> noarch ones, e.g. when there are significant rpm-build, redhat-rpm-config
> etc. changes that affect all packages.
Thanks Jakub. This is exactly why we didn't rebuild this session. We weren't
guessing that there wasn't any changes, we talked to the right people to
CONFIRM there wasn't any changes. Let me repeat, I'm all for rebuilding for
technical reasons. I'm not for rebuilding when we _think_ there _might_ be a
reason.
--
Jesse Keating
Release Engineer: Fedora
Attachment:
pgpzwKBYpMaxU.pgp
Description: PGP signature
-- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
