On Tue, 2006-02-14 at 06:47 +0100, Thorsten Leemhuis wrote:
> 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
Sorry, but as YOU are keen on a mass rebuilt, you should have thought
about this issue before. - Apparently you didn't do your job.
Also think about "apt-get sources", rsp. "apt-get build-deps". May-be
you know understand why src.rpm repositories are useful and why yum
lacks a key-feature that apt had provided.
> -- 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.
I guess, my opinion on FESCO's competence and qualification is no
secret.
> > 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 ;-)
Well, I didn't expect anything else .. Inter-package deps,
inter-maintainer deps, version deps, hidden API deps etc.
The main difference between RH and you is: They launched a mass rebuild,
coordinated by one central instance, which in the end results into a
weakly bubble-strap'ed distribution ("bubble sorted bootstrap").
Though this also is basically sense-free actionism, it at least is
doable, because broken interpackage deps won't be blocked by
inter-maintainer deps and can be handled by a central instance.
Ralf
--
fedora-extras-list mailing list
fedora-extras-list@xxxxxxxxxx
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-extras-list
