make unmaintained ??

Ralf Corsepius rc040203 at freenet.de
Mon Oct 26 17:29:01 UTC 2015


On 10/26/2015 05:21 PM, drago01 wrote:
> On Sun, Oct 25, 2015 at 8:24 PM, Stephen John Smoogen <smooge at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> On Oct 25, 2015 12:53, "Jan Kratochvil" <jan.kratochvil at redhat.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> On Sun, 25 Oct 2015 01:07:47 +0200, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek wrote:
>>>> I built 4.1 for rawhide. If that checks out to be OK, I can push
>>>> an update for F23 also.
>>>
>>> I do not understand why a major rebase could be permitted after all the
>>> F-23
>>> freezing stages?  It may cause FTBFSes or even broken builds.  What is
>>> then
>>> all the release engineering good for?  Why not to just run Rawhide then?
>>>
>>
>> I have to agree. I have been bitten too many times by minor tweaks breaking
>> builds in the OS. However the rules where a completely frozen build system
>> was causing problems in the past so I am expecting make is considered less
>> important than gcc?
>
> We have been shipping gcc bugfix updates all the time ... there is no
> reason why we shouldn't do the same for make.

I do not agree with you. Make has a long history and has been known to 
be notorious of introducing subtile bugs and behavioral changes in minor 
releases.

IMO, this should be sufficient reason to apply maximal prudence and 
caution to any update to make.

In other words, I consider it reasonable apply make updates to rawhide 
only and to watch for what will happen during the next mass-rebuild.

Ralf







More information about the devel mailing list