Why there is no sync for libicu soname rebuilds?
vondruch at redhat.com
Wed Feb 4 15:22:49 UTC 2015
Dne 4.2.2015 v 16:13 Parag Nemade napsal(a):
> On Wed, Feb 4, 2015 at 8:04 PM, Mikolaj Izdebski <mizdebsk at redhat.com> wrote:
>> On 02/04/2015 02:21 PM, Parag N(पराग़) wrote:
>>> I remember one year back also harfbuzz was attempted by 2 people on
>>> the same day for libicu rebuilds and now this time 3 builds by 2
>> harfbuzz 0.9.37-2 was built in f22-boost against new icu, but in
>> meantime it was updated to 0.9.38-1 in f22. I had to rebuild the new
>> version again after f22-boost was merged into f22.
>> I don't know why 0.9.38-3 was built, it looks like unnecessary build.
> Thanks David and Mikolaj. I am not sure if separate tag for libicu
> could have finished its rebuilds earlier than building it with boost
> tag.I actually got more confused when pmachata built harfbuzz without
> giving specific information in the changelog.
Well ideally, when you noticed that somebody touched your package and
you are going to update it, you should check where the updated package
actually is. If you built it once again in boost tag, the things would
But yes, the changelog might be better and make a difference. The
Fedora's mass rebuild changelog usually contains links to wiki and for
Ruby rebuilds, we link to change proposal wiki page, which might be (I
believe) good starting point to know what is going on.
More information about the devel