Re: Another unannounced soname bump: libseccomp

[Björn Persson]

Kevin Fenzi wrote:
>  We need to: 
>  
>  - Add messages to the broken deps report. (should be trivial). 
>  
>  - Setup a process to look for these and do the bump/rebuild. It would
>    need some smarts to make sure that it didn't do this every single day
>    when it fails, etc. Possibly it could check for it's changelog and if
>    it was the last thing to try building it, bypass.  
I note that that wouldn't cover the case where library A's soname
changes, library B depends on A, and program C depends on both A and B.
Rebuilding C would fail unless a rebuilt B has had time to get into the
buildroot, and the next day it wouldn't be retried.

>  - Ideally it would have some way to do a scratch build first and see
> if
>    the deps were fixed, but checking broken deps is not at all easy, so
>    that might be too much gravy.  
If it would do that, and retry the scratch build once a day, then it
would eventually work its way through dependency chains.

Björn Persson