Plan for tomorrow's (20070604) Release Engineering meeting

[Josh Boyer]

On Mon, 2007-06-04 at 16:58 +0200, Axel Thimm wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 04, 2007 at 09:30:43AM -0500, Josh Boyer wrote:
> > On Mon, 2007-06-04 at 16:19 +0200, Axel Thimm wrote:
> > > On Mon, Jun 04, 2007 at 11:59:23AM +0200, Hans de Goede wrote:
> > > >   Unfortunately this cycle we haven't done a mass rebuild, but for
> > > >   now lets assume we would have. Then the build environment for an
> > > >   update should be very much like the one in which the original
> > > >   package was build. So the chance of introducing regressions
> > > >   through build environment changes should be small.  (and in my
> > > >   experience is small in general anyways).
> > > 
> > > I'm for mass rebuilds at freeze time, I also tagged that on this
> > > thread, and I'm glad I see this parallel issue: Just to give an
> > > example of what happens w/o mass rebuilds (and it had to be one of my
> > > packages ... ):
> > > 
> > > A rebuild of apt for a minor buglet lead to different names of apt's
> > > library because apt wants to embed glibc's version in its libs, so the
> > > update broke synaptic and anything else that would be dependent on
> > > apt (I'm glad this happens now in the updates-testing repo!).
> > > 
> > > The decision of apt to code in glibc' version may be questionable, but
> > > it is there and I had never bumbed over it for the last 3-4 years, so
> > > it was also forgotten by me. But I don't want to have to think about
> > > which package may break if there is no mass-rebuild and a single
> > > rebuild later will find a completely changed environment.
> > > 
> > > Just to add some more random rant on the decision to not mass-rebuild:
> > > It was said that the glibc didn't change from FC6 to F7, still stuuf
> > > like fakeroot (or fakechroot, I forget) break due to changes in
> > > chownat and friends (just try installing the FC6 version on F7).
> > 
> > Wait... what?  Who said glibc didn't change from FC6 to F7?
> 
> Check out
> 
> http://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-devel-list/2007-April/msg00909.html
> http://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-devel-list/2007-April/msg00936.html

Ah, right.  Sorry, I took "didn't change" too literally.

Thanks for the links.

josh