Am Samstag, den 11.02.2006, 16:44 +0100 schrieb Thorsten Leemhuis: > Am Samstag, den 11.02.2006, 12:39 +0200 schrieb Ville Skyttä: > > Also, there are many noarch packages which don't benefit from a rebuild > > at all, so I think the above removal plan should be limited to > > non-noarch packages. > > They IMHO should be rebuild because > - this way we notice that packagers are still alive and active (maybe > some packages are orphaned and we simply don't know about it yet). > > - some noarch packages might not build anymore because foo or bar > changed in between (modular X.org for example). Yeah, maybe that's > unlikely, but we all know computers and linux well enough and know that > things like that happen. I asked Kevin how many noarch packages failed in his build tests http://www.scrye.com/~kevin/mock-broken.html : nirik> | ok, 11 noarch packages on the list: perl-bioperl, perl-GD, perl-GD-SVG, perl-Graph, php-pear-DB, python-goopy, python-logilab-common, python-myghty, rsnapshot, stow, w3c-markup-validator -- Thorsten Leemhuis <fedora@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> -- fedora-extras-list mailing list fedora-extras-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-extras-list
