Am Montag, den 13.02.2006, 23:02 +0100 schrieb Ralf Corsepius: > On Mon, 2006-02-13 at 19:55 +0100, Michael Schwendt wrote: > > On Mon, 13 Feb 2006 18:22:42 +0100, Thorsten Leemhuis wrote: > > > Most noarch packages probably would work fine without a rebuild and > > > won't have a benefit from the new gcc security features. But we know > > > that some noarch package are broken due to changes in rawhide -- we'd > > > like to catch and fix those. And we want to make sure that a package > > > still has a active maintainer while at it. > > It's still short-sighted, since > This whole undertaking is short-sighted. Anything but a dep-ordered > built will result into similar disorder as we have now. Well, I also think a build in dep-order would be better. But nobody showed up with a *concrete* plan how to do it -- there were only rough ideas but nobody worked out the details in time. And before we don't do a mass build I prefer that we do it this way. > Also, FESCO, why aren't you able to launch such are mass rebuild > yourself Most people attending to the meetings suggested a "rebuild-by-maintainer" solution. That was done then. > in at least "manually, semi-sorted" order like RH seems to be > doing it? [...] RH uses a the alphabetical order by the package name afaik -- I don't see any benefit from that ;-) CU thl -- fedora-extras-list mailing list fedora-extras-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-extras-list
