On 15.1.2015 23:13, Nicolas Chauvet wrote:
2015-01-15 20:18 GMT+01:00 Orion Poplawski
<orion(a)cora.nwra.com>:
> On 01/15/2015 04:20 AM, Ralf Corsepius wrote:
>> On 01/14/2015 03:10 AM, Orion Poplawski wrote:
>>> On 01/12/2015 06:08 AM, Vít Ondruch wrote:
>>>> Dear Fedora developers,
>>>>
>>>> I'd like to collect some feedback about the $SUBJECT, i.e. making
>>>> minimal build root really minimal, explicitly specifying build
>>>> dependencies, etc.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Would it be technically feasible to have a different buildroot for arch
>>> and noarch packages?
>> What would this be useful for?
>
> The thought would be that (almost all) noarch packages don't need gcc, so
> the
> noarch buildroot could exclude gcc without impacting existing packages.
I was going to say the same about noarch/arched packages and gcc
assumption, also that I don't see any "simplification" in hardcoding the
default compiler everywhere, specially as It probably depends on the build
target . I remember other distros were using cross-compiler in buildroot
and that was working pretty fine if the default "compiler" wasn't
needlessly assumed.
Another case about the default buildroot is compiler version, one could
rely on a newer gcc (such as with a gcc5 package) and rebuild any packages
with this new buildroot environment without tweaking any sources packages.
(I have no releng experience so I can be completely mistaken, please forgive
me :-))
Another advantage could be mass-rebuild simplification. Maybe we could save
machine and man-time by not rebuilding noarch packages because of gcc rebase
or something like that.
Maybe this can be somehow generalized: If we had a database with mapping:
SRPM -> all packages in build root (implicit and explicit BuildRequires)
we could somehow limit mass rebuilds to packages affected by latest changes.
--
Petr^2 Spacek