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

Re: Packages with "fc6" name in Fedora 7



On Sun, Apr 08, 2007 at 06:01:07PM +0530, Rahul Sundaram wrote:
> The current thinking seems to be to just ignore them* but this is 
> guaranteed to result in a lot of confusion.

Confusion is the lesser evil. The true evil is that the older the
package's rebuild date the more different the build environment was,
and the more likely a runtime or buildtime discrepancy may pop up.

Yes, Matt does frequent rebuilds, but who tests them if they don't
make it into rawhide?

> I would suggest that we consider rebuilding just to avoid the confusion. 
> I consider that a good enough "technical reason". The advantage of less 
> churn in packages is lost quickly since packages receive updates fairly 
> quickly in general.

The big packages have been rebuilt anyway, so there isn't much churn
to save.

I 100% agree with the rebuild suggestion, if it is not too late to do
that. I'd even take a slip into account for that to happen.

Also: The reason that there is no mass rebuild done is that the build
tools did not change, but

	      FC6		F7
gcc	      4.1.1-30		4.1.2-8
glibc	      2.5-3		2.5.90-20
binutils      2.17.50.0.3-6	2.17.50.0.12-3

Perhaps the gcc or binutils changes are not that big, but the glibc
ones seem to be, e.g. 2.5.90 is the prequel to 2.6 and just checking
the API (the glibc-headers) gives:

 41 files changed, 297 insertions(+), 220 deletions(-)

-- 
Axel.Thimm at ATrpms.net

Attachment: pgpSbtJ47kvIx.pgp
Description: PGP signature


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