[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

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

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


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.


Sven Luther


Reply to: