On Mon, Apr 16, 2007 at 11:54:15AM +0200, Matthias Saou wrote: > Axel Thimm wrote : > > > On Fri, Apr 06, 2007 at 02:06:52PM -0400, Jesse Keating wrote: > > > On Friday 06 April 2007 13:52:12 Orion Poplawski wrote: > > > > I would recommend at least one rebuild of a package just before release > > > > though for everything but pure data packages. I've been surprised by > > > > what has changed and caused failures. > > > > > > Continuous rebuilds are done, just not imported. I think this is great, we > > > get the benefit without the churn. Churning the entire package set without > > > reason is ridiculous and may do more harm than good. See Matt D's > > > core/extras rebuild reports. > > > > But nobody tests them. Only fatal build errors are probed that way. > > IIRC this is not true : A rebuild is also considered "failed" if it > creates packages with different requires or provides than the ones from > the packages in the repository. So, if the build generates the same sonames, it is already considered run-time tested? -- Axel.Thimm at ATrpms.net
Attachment:
pgpaO1wKhu2pK.pgp
Description: PGP signature
-- Fedora-packaging mailing list Fedora-packaging@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-packaging
