Does order matter for the rebuilds for the gcc 5.0 C++ ABI change?
davejohansen at gmail.com
Thu Feb 19 03:46:06 UTC 2015
On Wed, Feb 18, 2015 at 12:12 PM, Richard W.M. Jones <rjones at redhat.com>
> 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
> > > > before boost was?
> > >
> > > Yes. Jakub Jelinek wrote on this list:
> > >
> > > <quote>
> > > Also, a releng mass rebuild, which I believe is a random package
> > > 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
> > > 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
> > 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 ..
No worries. I was very appreciative of the help and the quick response.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the devel