Fedora 11 Mass Rebuild

[Matthew Woehlke]

Josh Boyer wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 18, 2009 at 10:59:12AM -0600, Matthew Woehlke wrote:
>> Jesse Keating wrote:
>>> On Tue, 2009-02-17 at 20:42 -0500, Jon Masters wrote:
>>>> And what will happen when something wants a static
>>>> library file to link against?
>>> This one is a little bit more interesting, perhaps everything that is
>>> static should get a second rebuild pass.  Of course, now I'm going to
>>> want a good programmatic way of discovering what is statically compiled,
>>> preferably without having to look at the binaries themselves.
>> It needs more resources, but the obvious solution is to do what gcc  
>> does... rebuild *everything* twice, and remove from the rebuild list  
>> things that produced an identical package. Then do a third pass, and  
>> continue until nothing changes. (Probably it will be necessary to scan  
>> the rebuild list between subsequent packages to cull things that are  
>> only "changed" due to timestamps and the like.)
>>
>> This should catch everything where a rebuilt dependency caused the  
>> resulting package to be different.
> 
> The simple act of rebuilding the packages will change them.  You'll
> always get a difference, given that the RPM header will change and
> the Release number will be bumped.

Obviously you'd need a way to exclude these differences.

> Even ignoring the RPM parts, various applications do things like
> embed dates or buildhosts or other build time information into the
> binaries, and will differ as a result of that.

Of course. That's why, if you read *all* of my previous message, I said 
"probably it will be necessary to scan the rebuild list between 
subsequent packages to cull things that are only "changed" due to 
timestamps and the like."

-- 
Matthew
Please do not quote my e-mail address unobfuscated in message bodies.
-- 
"Nobody expects the traditional Bourne shell!"