Fedora Core 5 Test 3 Slip

[Mike A. Harris]

Jeffrey C. Ollie wrote:
> On Mon, 2006-02-06 at 09:12 -0800, Jesse Keating wrote:
> 
>>On Mon, 2006-02-06 at 09:03 -0800, Steve G wrote:
>>
>>>Out of curiosity, when the rebuild occurs...does the script use an alphabetical
>>>listing of the packages from a to z. Or does the script try to build the packages
>>>in a somewhat ordered fashion from no dependencies (attr, zlib, bzip, etc) to
>>>more complicated packages that have many dependencies (mkinitrd, pam, slang,
>>>etc.) 
>>
>>Mostly just an a to z thing.  The way our current build system works,
>>every package is installed into the build root, so at this point we're
>>pretty assured that all build reqs will be met.  This is not optimal for
>>many reasons, and a replacement build system is being developed that
>>fixes this.
> 
> 
> I know that yum/mock/plague doesn't quite fit the bill as a beehive
> replacement, but it would be nice if RedHat could work with the
> community to extend yum/mock/plague rather than re-inventing the wheel.
> 
> I know that one thing that plague could use is a way to easily switch
> the plague client between two or more plague servers.

s/RedHat/Red Hat/

Would it make that much of a difference though, or would people still
say the same thing?  I think even if Red Hat devoted 2 or more
employees working full time on mock/plague that people would still
say the same thing.  Why do I think that?  Well for starters, Red Hat
has contributed quite a lot to plague already from what I understand.
I don't know the level of contribution to mock, but it gets heavy
usage internally by individuals, and our next generation buildsystem
is aparently based on mock/plague.  What more exactly are you looking
for?  I suppose Red Hat could in theory hire every single person who
has contributed to either project...   ;o)   But then there would
be conspiracy theories about something else right? ;o)


-- 
Mike A. Harris  *  Open Source Advocate  *  http://mharris.ca
                       Proud Canadian.