mass rebuild status

[Toshio Kuratomi]

On Wed, Feb 09, 2011 at 12:51:02AM -0500, James Antill wrote:
> On Tue, 2011-02-08 at 20:49 -0700, Kevin Fenzi wrote:
> > On Tue, 8 Feb 2011 20:00:44 -0500
> > Josh Boyer <jwboyer at gmail.com> wrote:
> > 
> > > I believe this wiki page should have been included in the announce
> > > mail:
> > > 
> > > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_15_Mass_Rebuild
> > > 
> > > For those that don't particularly follow devel day-to-day, the blurb
> > > about the XZ change is pretty uninformative.  I've tried to dig back a
> > > bit and it seems the XZ change is to pick up XZ 5.0.  It seems the
> > > rebuild was done to fix Delta RPM generation?  From a package
> > > standpoint, will that mean that F14 is incapable of reading F15 RPMs?
> > > Does that impact mock?
> > 
> > The only case it hits is deltas. If you have a package that was built
> > in f14, and then a update happens in f15, the delta wouldn't work
> > right. (At least this is my understanding). 
> > 
> > mock shouldn't be affected, nor should f14/f15 rpm read interop. 
> > 
> > > I'd be happy to flesh out the change a bit more in detail if someone
> > > could point me at what is really changing in terms of XZ compression
> > > and what it means going forward.  Better late than never.
> > 
> > Yeah, I wish I could find a good cite... 
> > Perhaps the deltarpm and/or xz maintainers could chime in with the
> > exact info. 
> 
>  This is the first hit for "xz compression deltarpm problem" and
> describes the problem perfectly ... although it is from 2009 ;)
> 
> http://cedarandthistle.wordpress.com/2009/12/29/deltarpm-problems-part-ii/
> 
<nod>  That does a great job of explaining what we had here.  The difference
this time is that instead of architecture being the key, version of xz was
the key.  The new and old versions of xz create compatible archives but they
aren't byte-for-byte identical.  That could lead to certain circumstances
where the rpm signature was invalid for an rpm reconstructed from a deltarpm
even though the uncompressed data was the same.

-Toshio
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 198 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/devel/attachments/20110208/d6df6fd3/attachment.bin