On Sat, Aug 1, 2020 at 7:17 AM Kevin Kofler <kevin.kof...@chello.at> wrote:
>
> Neal Gompa wrote:
> > I think it does have value, however I think the Red Hat compiler team
> > drastically underestimated how much breakage we're willing to tolerate
> > for it.
>
> I think you mean "overestimated" there, not "underestimated", don't you?
>

Yeah, I meant overestimated here... That's what I get for replying
right after waking up. :)

> > That's not true. Since Koji 1.18, it's been possible to modify the
> > build process by setting simple RPM macros and mock flags in build
> > tags. And with the module builds (which operate in chain builds on
> > side tags), there is a higher potential for modifications that can
> > result in a different set of binaries since it'll generate macros
> > packages on demand to do complex build environment changes.
>
> But the annobin side tag would have the exact same RPM macros and mock flags
> set as regular Rawhide. (Ideally, none, because Rawhide should be the
> default target of the specfiles.) Modules would of course need their own
> annobin side tags (one per module build tag) if you want to cover them too.
>

Then there'd be the problem of where we'd have the build capacity. We
barely have enough for what we do now...



-- 
真実はいつも一つ!/ Always, there's only one truth!
_______________________________________________
devel mailing list -- devel@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: 
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: 
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org

Reply via email to