[fedora-arm] Fedora 15 ARM hardfp Virtual FAD (Fedora Activity Day) - FRIDAY

[Peter Robinson]

On Sun, Jul 10, 2011 at 10:44 PM, Matthew Garrett <mjg59 at 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
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/devel/attachments/20110710/4566c6b9/attachment.html