Thank you, Jesse, for the explaination.
On Fri, 10 Mar 2006 16:35:06 -0500, Jesse Keating wrote:
On Fri, 2006-03-10 at 16:24 -0500, Philippe Rigault wrote:
Sure, only 2442 RPM packages have been rebuilt out of 2442.
Um, no. These were rebuilt before Test3, and the reason why Test3 took a while because we wanted to get these built FOR test3 so that they would get TESTING.
I see, I misinterpreted the fact that all packages have a last modification date of March 6 or after, it is true that most carry the same name as in test3. Most of them have therefore been touch'ed and not rebuild, right ?
And since packages based on gcc-4.1.0 and glibc-2.4 stable were indeed rebuilt after test 3, it means that most packages on FC5 will have been built with an earlier gcc/glibc (pre-release), different from that distributed in the release.
As a consequence, if one takes an FC5 SRPM and does a 'rpmbuild -bb', the rpm may contain differences from the native RPM disributed with FC5.
Am I right on these points ?
Maybe this deserves a little note in the release notes (unless I am the only one who was confused).
Thanks.
On Fri, 2006-03-10 at 17:28 -0500, Philippe Rigault wrote:
I see, I misinterpreted the fact that all packages have a last modification date of March 6 or after, it is true that most carry the same name as in test3. Most of them have therefore been touch'ed and not rebuild, right ?
So file modification times are largely useless. Built time in the package header, now that's an important one.
And since packages based on gcc-4.1.0 and glibc-2.4 stable were indeed rebuilt after test 3, it means that most packages on FC5 will have been built with an earlier gcc/glibc (pre-release), different from that distributed in the release.
Ah but our GCC developer makes sure that the changes that went in to gcc from the time that we did the rebuild to the package we're shipping don't actually require rebuilding every package again. They are minor bug fixes which won't effect the majority of the packages. Some small changes require us to respin a few packages and we do so. But for the rest, they are just fine.
As a consequence, if one takes an FC5 SRPM and does a 'rpmbuild -bb', the rpm may contain differences from the native RPM disributed with FC5.
Am I right on these points ?
not really.
Maybe this deserves a little note in the release notes (unless I am the only one who was confused).
This is far far too technical for a release note.
On 3/10/06, Philippe Rigault prigault@oricom.ca wrote:
I see, I misinterpreted the fact that all packages have a last modification date of March 6 or after, it is true that most carry the same name as in test3. Most of them have therefore been touch'ed and not rebuild, right ?
modification date as listed on mirrors isn't a good measure of build date. Pretty sure modification date can change when packages are last signed.. which is not the same day they were built.
rpm packages hold a build date header string which you can more accurately rely on, assuming you trust the buildsystem which built the packages not to lie to you and stick in the wrong date.
case in point rpm -qi tetex Build Date: Sat 25 Feb 2006 05:01:41 Signature : DSA/SHA1, Mon 06 Mar 2006 03:42:47 PM EST, Key ID b44269d04f2a6fd2
For post test3 build dates... please refer to the available build reports achived in this mailinglist which contain relevant package changelog snippets which reference specific bug reports fixed which the associated update. As you continue to look back over the archives please also look for previous discussions associated with the gcc/glibc fixes to make sure you have all the information possible before making more judgements as to this process.
-jef
Philippe Rigault (prigault@oricom.ca) said:
Thank you, Jesse, for the explaination.
On Fri, 10 Mar 2006 16:35:06 -0500, Jesse Keating wrote:
On Fri, 2006-03-10 at 16:24 -0500, Philippe Rigault wrote:
Sure, only 2442 RPM packages have been rebuilt out of 2442.
Um, no. These were rebuilt before Test3, and the reason why Test3 took a while because we wanted to get these built FOR test3 so that they would get TESTING.
I see, I misinterpreted the fact that all packages have a last modification date of March 6 or after, it is true that most carry the same name as in test3. Most of them have therefore been touch'ed and not rebuild, right ?
They've been signed.
Bill
Bill Nottingham wrote:
Philippe Rigault (prigault@oricom.ca) said:
Thank you, Jesse, for the explaination.
On Fri, 10 Mar 2006 16:35:06 -0500, Jesse Keating wrote:
On Fri, 2006-03-10 at 16:24 -0500, Philippe Rigault wrote:
Sure, only 2442 RPM packages have been rebuilt out of 2442.
Um, no. These were rebuilt before Test3, and the reason why Test3 took a while because we wanted to get these built FOR test3 so that they would get TESTING.
I see, I misinterpreted the fact that all packages have a last modification date of March 6 or after, it is true that most carry the same name as in test3. Most of them have therefore been touch'ed and not rebuild, right ?
They've been signed.
Does that cause the rpm size difference of 160 bytes larger ? I wondered why many packages are identical in name, but not identical in size.
DaveT.