Re: FESCo Meeting Summary for 2007-06-28
On Sun, Jul 01, 2007 at 12:04:34PM -0400, Brian Pepple wrote:
On Sun, 2007-07-01 at 17:47 +0200, Axel Thimm wrote:
> On Sun, Jul 01, 2007 at 11:21:38AM -0400, Brian Pepple wrote:
> >
> > I was tentatively planning on having FESCo decide this around the end of
> > July / beginning of August, since we need still need input from the tool
> > team as to whether the tool-chain warrants a mass-rebuild for F8.
>
> But one of the questions is whether mass rebuilds need to be done
> irrespective of that input. Not that the team is not compentent, but
> we had the same input for F7 and found it not proper at several
> instances already and bridge-utils is still compiled against 2.6.18
> headers (just an example).
>
> So the top question is: Always have mass rebuilds, no matter what, or
> delegate this decision to a releng/tools team?
That question is actually the item I have on the schedule to discuss
(which like said I was planning on doing around the end of July).
OK, if there really is enough time to discuss it in August, that would
be fine with me. I just think that Jesse for example would not want
the rebuilds to happen shortly before freeze time and freeze is
scheduled to happen at Aug 27th.
Past experience shows that it would have to be started to be discussed
in fesco now, otherwise it will just not make it in time.
But I also wonder: While I'd prefer to have a clear decision on
rebuilding no matter what the toolchain changes: given that gcc 4.2 is
already getting "old" and Fedora is about tracking recent technologies
it would really be a shame not to have it in the November release
(where gcc 4.2 will be half a year old).
So from the perspective of Fedora's goals, gcc 4.2 has to make it into
F8. And that alone is probably reason enough to do the rebuilds.
Still fesco should decide on a general policy independent of
toolschain matters. This time perhaps gcc 4.2 could save the
discussion, but in F9 time people will be arguing that F8 was only
rebuilt because of gcc 4.2.
It's the first item in the priority 2 section:
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Development/Schedule
Later,
/B
--
Axel.Thimm at ATrpms.net
Attachments:
- attachment.sig (application/pgp-signature — 189 bytes)