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

Re: Fedora Core 5 Status



On Fri, 2006-03-10 at 17:28 -0500, Philippe Rigault wrote:
> I see, I misinterpreted the fact that all packages have a last modification 
> date of March 6 or after, it is true that most carry the same name as in 
> test3. Most of them have therefore been touch'ed and not rebuild, right ?

So file modification times are largely useless.  Built time in the
package header, now that's an important one.


> And since packages based on gcc-4.1.0 and glibc-2.4 stable were indeed rebuilt 
> after test 3, it means that most packages on FC5 will have been built with an 
> earlier gcc/glibc (pre-release), different from that distributed in the 
> release.

Ah but our GCC developer makes sure that the changes that went in to gcc
from the time that we did the rebuild to the package we're shipping
don't actually require rebuilding every package again.  They are minor
bug fixes which won't effect the majority of the packages.  Some small
changes require us to respin a few packages and we do so.  But for the
rest, they are just fine.

> As a consequence, if one takes an FC5 SRPM and does a 'rpmbuild -bb', the rpm 
> may contain differences from the native RPM disributed with FC5.
> 
> Am I right on these points ?

not really.

> Maybe this deserves a little note in the release notes (unless I am the only 
> one who was confused).
> 

This is far far too technical for a release note.

-- 
Jesse Keating RHCE      (geek.j2solutions.net)
Fedora Legacy Team      (www.fedoralegacy.org)
GPG Public Key          (geek.j2solutions.net/jkeating.j2solutions.pub)

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part


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