On 10/26/2015 05:21 PM, drago01 wrote:
On Sun, Oct 25, 2015 at 8:24 PM, Stephen John Smoogen <smo...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Oct 25, 2015 12:53, "Jan Kratochvil" <jan.kratoch...@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
--
devel mailing list
devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
