Mass rebuilds

[Axel Thimm]

On Sat, Dec 09, 2006 at 10:00:02PM +0100, Thorsten Leemhuis wrote:
> > So regular non-rawhide users are really not affected at all.
> 
> The last release maybe. The situation might be different with other
> releases.

The numbers show that this was the case since Fedora's birth. Why
should the future be different?

And if history is not enough, then check the usage of disttags:
Currently 97.3% of extras packages have a disttag, which means that
these packages will be rebuilt no matter what from release to release.

So again, there is no drawback for non-rawhide users. We will have
these rebuilds between releases anyhow, so let's make a better use out
of this situation and use mass rebuilds more effectively, e.g. both in
a better automated fashion as well as for doing QA on test releases.

> BTW: There was a strong opposition when we did the first mass-rebuild
> for FE (and that was really needed iirc).

Yes, because it was and is an unneccessary waste of man power if done
non-automatically.

> >>> In fact frequent mass rebuilds would disclose bugs that have
> >>> gone by unnoticed, e.g. when a package's direct or indirect
> >>> build dependencies change and the maintainer missed to notice
> >>> that it affects his package indeed.

> Sure. But is the rebuild one really better, even if there was no
> reason for a rebuild? I would prefer a known good rpm over a
> rebuilded one when there was no need for a rebuild.

If the rebuilt rpm is worse then what you had before there is a bug
somewhere, right?. Don't you want to find that bug? It will surface
later someday anyway, so better to let it show up when it entered the
system.
-- 
Axel.Thimm at ATrpms.net
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://listman.redhat.com/archives/fedora-extras-list/attachments/20061209/ab387701/attachment.sig>