On Tue, Apr 10, 2007 at 08:48:44AM -0400, Jesse Keating wrote:
On Tuesday 10 April 2007 02:55:47 Axel Thimm wrote:
> No, that's not the truth, we had them for every release until now,
> only F7 got skipped. Check the repo if you can't remember.
We haven't on core side.
It depends on what you call a full rebuild. The core side has always
rebuilt >= 95% of all packages, most release much more than 99%. I
would call that very close to a full rebuild.
Here are the numbers of the amount of Core packages rebuilt per
release. FC1 gets 100% because I don't have the RHL9 packages handy,
but anyway (for > 99% I added as many digits as neccessary to show
what wasn't rebuilt):
1 100%
2 99.7%
3 100%
4 96.6%
5 99.991%
6 95%
7 80%
So as you see, up to F7 Core had really been effectively rebuilt on
each release with FC4 and FC5 being the most "sloppy" ones leaving
3.4% and 5% resp. not rebuilt. With F7 Core drops down to 80% rebuild
rate. This *is* a new release model.
Just looking at what hasn't been requilt: Some packages like
bitstream-fonts really don't deserve a rebuild (they also don't
deserve a disttag FWIW), but others like bridge-utils that depend on
kernel-headers at build time possibly do, and now we're running with
bridge-utils built against 2.6.18.
Instead of checking each package whether it should be rebuilt or not,
it is easier, faster and correcter to do a full rebuild at release
freezing time in the development cycle.
We've done targetted rebuilds of things for specific changes,
not
every single package. Many noarch packages were not rebuilt for a
period of time. With FC6 we rebuilt every package that hadn't yet
been built by our new buildsystem, as well as any compiled package
that wasn't compiled with the new gcc.
Check the repos, you'll find the same numbers I wrote above.
--
Axel.Thimm at
ATrpms.net