<div dir="ltr"><div class="gmail_extra"><div class="gmail_quote">On Wed, Feb 18, 2015 at 12:12 PM, Richard W.M. Jones <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:rjones@redhat.com" target="_blank">rjones@redhat.com</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div class="HOEnZb"><div class="h5">On Wed, Feb 18, 2015 at 10:39:16AM -0700, Dave Johansen wrote:<br>
> On Wed, Feb 18, 2015 at 8:54 AM, Richard W.M. Jones <<a href="mailto:rjones@redhat.com">rjones@redhat.com</a>><br>
> wrote:<br>
><br>
> > On Wed, Feb 18, 2015 at 08:04:53AM -0700, Dave Johansen wrote:<br>
> > > I rebuilt libcutl the other day and then noticed that later boost was<br>
> > > rebuilt. libcutl depends on boost, so is it a problem that it was rebuilt<br>
> > > before boost was?<br>
> ><br>
> > Yes. Jakub Jelinek wrote on this list:<br>
> ><br>
> > <quote><br>
> > Also, a releng mass rebuild, which I believe is a random package order,<br>
> > would very likely not help very much, due to the ABI changes one needs to<br>
> > rebuild the packages in topological order, non-C++ packages or C++<br>
> > packages<br>
> > that nothing C++ depends on of course can be left for the mass rebuild,<br>
> > but<br>
> > ideally the rest should be rebuilt manually before the mass rebuild.<br>
> > </quote><br>
> ><br>
><br>
> I had read through the original "results of a test mass rebuild" and didn't<br>
> notice anything like that. Sorry for the oversight on my part and thanks<br>
> for the info.<br>
<br>
</div></div>I sound a bit accusatory there. Wasn't meant that way :-) I don't<br>
read even a tenth of all the email lists I'm subscribed to either ..<br></blockquote></div><br></div><div class="gmail_extra">No worries. I was very appreciative of the help and the quick response.<br></div></div>