2012/11/28, Thomas Backlund <[email protected]>: > Florent Monnier skrev 28.11.2012 20:39: >> 2012/11/28, Thierry Vignaud <[email protected]>: >>> On 28 November 2012 15:44, blue_prawn <[email protected]> >>> wrote: >>>> blue_prawn <blue_prawn> 0.3-5.mga3: >>>> + Revision: 322631 >>>> - no change, only a rebuild >>> >>> Please tell why you rebuild >>> eg: "rebuild for new ocaml" or whatever instead of "no change..." >> >> malo (other ocaml packager) suggests me to put "rebuild for Beta 1" >> >> but this is the goal, not the origine, >> the reason is because a dependency was rebuild. >> in ocaml if a dependency is rebuild, all the dependents and >> sub-dependents have to be rebuild. >> >> So which log message would you prefer: >> >> - rebuild for Beta 1 > > this one: > >> - rebuild because dependency rebuilt > > as it's the real reason. > > or more like: > > - rebuild for new ocaml > > (or wichever package "triggered" the need for rebuild)
So it should have been: - rebuild for new xmlm I do have a question related to this issue: Should ocaml libs in Cauldron be maintained usable? For example if I've rebuild xmlm 3 months ago, there is nothing to change in xtmpl, so currently I just wait before Mageia's release to rebuild all that needs to be. That means that during these 3 months, xtmpls didn't worked in Cauldron. Is that bad? ========= In case that's bad, I'm wondering how I should handle this. - I can just icrem the mkrel of all ocaml libs. (I can write the script to do this in 5 minutes.) - I can create a dependency graph, so when I rebuilt xmlm 3 months ago, I can use the dependcy graph to know the exhaustive list of dependents that also need to be rebuild. (I can write the script to do this in maybe 1 evening) -- Cheers
