On Thu, Dec 29, 2005 at 02:37:03AM +0100, Alfred M. Szmidt wrote: > I have some surprisingly good statistics. In ALT Linux Sisyphus > (repository with 5000+ source packages) percentage of packages > > You have fallen for the trap [...]
It's full name (ALT GNU/*/Linux Sisyphus) is too long to be used frequently. Usually I call it simply Sisyphus. > which build was broken by make update is about 10 (0.2%). > > Did this test include recent softawre only? Or old? Every large package repository includes both old and recent software. Sisyphus is not an exception. > Do you have a list of those 10 packages that broken? I started testing upcoming make a year ago with 3.81beta2. Rebuild tests uncovered a few problems which was reported to savannah bug tracker. Most of them were fixed, all the rest was workarounded and hopefully reported upstream by package maintainers. After recent make update (beta3 -> beta4) I removed workarounds related to "second expansion" feature. The number I said (10) is my feeling of number of packages which was changed to build both with old and new versions of make. Because it was long-term process with several packagers involved, I have no list. > If the number is that small, Yes, the number is small now. Probably even small enough for release. > then I'll shutup about this; and send a patch to libc to fix the > little annoyance. By the way, glibc-2.3.6 builds on linux just fine both with 3.80 and 3.81beta4. -- ldv
pgp823wN9fN1c.pgp
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ Bug-make mailing list Bug-make@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-make
