On Tue, Apr 10, 2007 at 10:41:53AM -0400, Jeremy Katz wrote: > On Tue, 2007-04-10 at 15:33 +0200, Axel Thimm wrote: > > 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. > > But see, just rebuilding bridge-utils isn't going to be enough to get > any new kernel functionality[1]... you also going to want to get the new > release of bridge-utils. And go through any bugs filed. I'm not after *new* functionality, I'm afraid bridge-utils build on possibly deprecated functionality. Maybe bridge-utils requires some love, maybe not, we won't know until someone either review the case or does a rebuild. > Automated rebuilds tend to hide things like this, which actually > lead to more problems down the line > > Jeremy > > [1] I don't know if there actually _is_ any in this case, but there is a > new bridge-utils upstream release from a quick look at the website. That was just an example, I only looked `till the letter "b" and found bitstream and bridge-utils as two opposite examples (one not worth of rebuilds, one the probably is). The point I want to make is that it is easier to do the rebuild and see if something breaks while building and/or running it, than to let it degrade in time and be bitten by it when you least expect it. I don't think automated rebuild would hide any issues, in fact on the contrary, they would expose any issues in our faces, *IFF* the get committed into rawhide proper. That's why I think that the test release tagged "frozen" should be a complete rebuild. -- Axel.Thimm at ATrpms.net
Attachment:
pgp2uNPE2ycln.pgp
Description: PGP signature
-- Fedora-packaging mailing list Fedora-packaging@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-packaging
