Re: Bits (Nybbles?) from the Vancouver release team meeting

[Humberto Massa <humberto.massa@almg.gov.br>]

Sven Luther wrote:

> On Mon, Mar 14, 2005 at 03:52:54PM -0300, Humberto Massa wrote:
>  
>
> > Sven Luther wrote:
> >
> >    
> >
> > > > Speaking of which, can anyone here explain to me why does a two-line 
> > > > security fix on, say, KDE, makes things need to be recompiled for 12 
> > > > days long? (!!!) One could think that there are more incremental ways of 
> > > > dealing with recompilation of enourmous packages.
> > > >  
> > > >
> > > >        
> > > Not currently supported, and not really considered as a technical
> > > solution.
> > >
> > > Friendly,
> > >
> > > Sven Luther
> > >
> > >
> > >      
> > Your answer was not really considered an answer to my question either :-)
> >
> > My original question began with the word "why...?". So I repeat, why 
> > does small things need days of recompilation? Moreover, why isn't 
> >    
>
> They do not really, provided you keep about all the intermediate .o files of
> the preceding build, depending on the security fix naturally.
>  
My points are: (1) this is feasible/viable and (2) this would put times 
for tier-[23] arch builds in the same league (or at least compatible) 
with tier-1 arch builds.

>  
>
> > incremental building supported? And finally, why isn't it considered a 
> > technical solution?
> >    
>
> Because it is not needed for the fast tier1 arches ? 
>  
This is a chicken-and-egg thing, isn't it? And it should be considered a 
*technical* solution, even if not a *political* one.

> Friendly,
>
> Sven Luther
>
>
>  

Massa