On Tue, Apr 10, 2007 at 08:48:44AM -0400, Jesse Keating wrote: > On Tuesday 10 April 2007 02:55:47 Axel Thimm wrote: > > No, that's not the truth, we had them for every release until now, > > only F7 got skipped. Check the repo if you can't remember. > > We haven't on core side. It depends on what you call a full rebuild. The core side has always rebuilt >= 95% of all packages, most release much more than 99%. I would call that very close to a full rebuild. Here are the numbers of the amount of Core packages rebuilt per release. FC1 gets 100% because I don't have the RHL9 packages handy, but anyway (for > 99% I added as many digits as neccessary to show what wasn't rebuilt): 1 100% 2 99.7% 3 100% 4 96.6% 5 99.991% 6 95% 7 80% So as you see, up to F7 Core had really been effectively rebuilt on each release with FC4 and FC5 being the most "sloppy" ones leaving 3.4% and 5% resp. not rebuilt. With F7 Core drops down to 80% rebuild rate. This *is* a new release model. Just looking at what hasn't been requilt: Some packages like bitstream-fonts really don't deserve a rebuild (they also don't deserve a disttag FWIW), but others like bridge-utils that depend on kernel-headers at build time possibly do, and now we're running with bridge-utils built against 2.6.18. Instead of checking each package whether it should be rebuilt or not, it is easier, faster and correcter to do a full rebuild at release freezing time in the development cycle. > We've done targetted rebuilds of things for specific changes, not > every single package. Many noarch packages were not rebuilt for a > period of time. With FC6 we rebuilt every package that hadn't yet > been built by our new buildsystem, as well as any compiled package > that wasn't compiled with the new gcc. Check the repos, you'll find the same numbers I wrote above. -- Axel.Thimm at ATrpms.net
Attachment:
pgp9hEjNzUXuG.pgp
Description: PGP signature
-- Fedora-packaging mailing list Fedora-packaging@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-packaging
