Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: libgcj - separate libgcj srpm https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=208613 fitzsim@xxxxxxxxxx changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |aph@xxxxxxxxxx ------- Additional Comments From fitzsim@xxxxxxxxxx 2007-02-14 17:05 EST ------- I talked this over with Jakub, Tom Tromey and Andrew Overholt, and we came up with an alternate proposal. The main goal of splitting libgcj was to get class library fixes out to Fedora users faster. Jakub has explained to me that there are problems with that goal for Fedora updates: 1) we don't want to force users to download megabytes of updates very often (35M for a libgcj update (no debuginfo), 78M for a full gcc update (no debuginfo) and 2) we don't want to force re-prelinking more often than necessary (a libgcj update forces re-prelinking of all libraries linked to it (uses up to 10 minutes of CPU time according to Jakub). He has suggested that we instead use updates-testing as a channel for fast delivery of libgcj updates to users. In this arrangement, the process for getting a class library fix out to Fedora users would be: 1) fix GNU Classpath upstream 2) backport the fix to redhat/gcc-4_1-branch in the GCC SVN repository 3) send mail to Jakub requesting a new gcc build in Fedora 7 updates-testing Normal users would get the fix in the next gcc update, which would happen at a frequency of once every one or two months. Users who want a fix immediately could do: yum --enablerepo=updates-testing update libgcj Jakub would be prepared to do these updates-testing gcc builds as long as they weren't needed more often than once per week. The remaining concerns are: 1) Jakub is too busy on a given week to build a requested fix into updates-testing Jakub, if this were the case, would it be possible for one of us from the Java group to do the build, after you've approved the proposed changes? 2) A class library bug that should be fixed for all libgcj users (not just those aware of/able-to-use updates-testing) is found early in the one-to-two month gcc update cycle I don't have a good answer for this one. Those users will have to wait the one or two months for that update. 3) gcc will still have the same large set of BuildRequires Does releng still consider this an issue? 4) The potential for merging java-1.5.0-gcj into libgcj Jakub tells me he's open to accepting java-1.5.0-gcj constructs into the libgcj sub-rpm of the gcc spec file (alternatives, new SourceNs, etc.) so this merge can be done independent of the libgcj split. Do people think this approach is acceptable/better than the split libgcj approach? -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is. _______________________________________________ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@xxxxxxxxxx http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review