[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]

Re: Release Engineering Meeting Recap from Monday 16-APR-07



On Tue, Apr 17, 2007 at 08:22:44AM +0200, Thorsten Leemhuis wrote:
> On 17.04.2007 07:48, Dave Jones wrote:
> >On Tue, Apr 17, 2007 at 06:58:52AM +0200, Thorsten Leemhuis wrote:
> > > >   1. In the future we should consider a mass rebuild of all packages 
> > > > around, but no later than test2

> >Taking a look at the packages in my f7 mirror, I spot 52 packages
> >that still have a .fc6 tag, none of which look particularly
> >"omg, we have to rebuild this".  There are also 713 with no %{dist} tag
> >which include some which we definitly have rebuilt, so it's harder
> >to figure out which of those got updated and which didn't.
> 
> Some numbers:

> $ echo $((4073-1206))
> 2867
> 
> IOW: 1206 out of 4073 source packages were not rebuild in devel (both 
> core and extras) between release of FC6 and now.

But that's by choice and now what the usual Fedora policy was until
now. Here is the historical data, that shows that we've been doing
effectively full rebuilds ever until now.

On Tue, Apr 10, 2007 at 03:33:29PM +0200, Axel Thimm wrote:
> 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.
-- 
Axel.Thimm at ATrpms.net

Attachment: pgpFRXRTKp08M.pgp
Description: PGP signature


[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]