On Sun, Jul 10, 2011 at 10:44 PM, Matthew Garrett <mj...@srcf.ucam.org>wrote:
> On Sun, Jul 10, 2011 at 05:31:09PM -0400, Jon Masters wrote: > > > It doesn't just benefit bootstrap either. Take (random example) the > > recent CFLAGS change in redhat-rpm-config. What should happen at that > > point is that every package is automatically rebuilt. Should it cause a > > problem? No. But having packages randomly fail to build later because of > > some change made months or even years earlier is something to fix. > > That change was made based on the assumption that there'll be a mass > rebuild in the F16 timescale. It's not practical for us to insist on > mass rebuilds every time we make an individual change, especially since > in this case we'd have had to do it again once it's moved to ldflags > rather than cflags. > > It's certainly true that we could do more to identify ftbfs situations > earlier, but we've had mass rebuilds in most recent releases. Random > failures years down the line really aren't a realistic concern. > > I actually disagree. I've been working on rebuilding F-14 for the current softfp arm platform that doesn't need to be boot strapped. The amount of packages in Fedora 14 that don't compile on the main intel platform even if I do a plain vanilla F-14 install with no updates (ie it was broken on release and wasn't any better with any of the updates). There wasn't a mass rebuild for F-14, just for perl and python dependencies. Even with the F-15 mass rebuild I've found a number of packages that their owners never bothered to fix the FTBFS that was a result of the F-15 mass rebuild that have caused me problems that I've had to fix because the owner of the package never bothered to fix the FTBFS. Peter
-- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
