Does order matter for the rebuilds for the gcc 5.0 C++ ABI change?

[Richard W.M. Jones]

On Wed, Feb 18, 2015 at 10:39:16AM -0700, Dave Johansen wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 18, 2015 at 8:54 AM, Richard W.M. Jones <rjones at redhat.com>
> wrote:
> 
> > On Wed, Feb 18, 2015 at 08:04:53AM -0700, Dave Johansen wrote:
> > > I rebuilt libcutl the other day and then noticed that later boost was
> > > rebuilt. libcutl depends on boost, so is it a problem that it was rebuilt
> > > before boost was?
> >
> > Yes.  Jakub Jelinek wrote on this list:
> >
> > <quote>
> >   Also, a releng mass rebuild, which I believe is a random package order,
> >   would very likely not help very much, due to the ABI changes one needs to
> >   rebuild the packages in topological order, non-C++ packages or C++
> > packages
> >   that nothing C++ depends on of course can be left for the mass rebuild,
> > but
> >   ideally the rest should be rebuilt manually before the mass rebuild.
> > </quote>
> >
> 
> I had read through the original "results of a test mass rebuild" and didn't
> notice anything like that. Sorry for the oversight on my part and thanks
> for the info.

I sound a bit accusatory there.  Wasn't meant that way :-)  I don't
read even a tenth of all the email lists I'm subscribed to either ..

Rich.

-- 
Richard Jones, Virtualization Group, Red Hat http://people.redhat.com/~rjones
Read my programming and virtualization blog: http://rwmj.wordpress.com
virt-builder quickly builds VMs from scratch
http://libguestfs.org/virt-builder.1.html