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

Re: Fedora Extras Package Build Report 2006-09-23



On Sat, 2006-09-23 at 08:40 -0500, Quentin Spencer wrote:

> mftrace was removed a few days ago because it was missing a dependency. 

No it wasn't, it was reported being queued for removal early next week.
http://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-extras-list/2006-September/msg00689.html

> Since I was only rebuilding it to get it back in the repo, I figured 
> incrementing the version was not necessary. Are you really going to make 
> me rebuild with a higher version number?

Incrementing the EVR is *always* the right thing to do between two
successful builds.  If mftrace would have been removed and reintroduced
without NEVR changes later in form of a new rebuild, there would have
been the case that there are two *different* packages with the exact
same NEVR installed out in the wild (people who installed the old one
before it was removed, and ones who installed the newly rebuilt one).

Usually this doesn't require extra attention because the push scripts
prevent madness like this from entering the repo by not replacing
existing builds with new, different packages (which is what happened in
the mftrace case).  The mass rebuild removals have introduced a window
where people could sneak in no-NEVR-changed rebuilds, but I'm actively
trying to catch and prevent it manually.


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