On Mon, Oct 26, 2015 at 12:21 PM, drago01 <drag...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Sun, Oct 25, 2015 at 8:24 PM, Stephen John Smoogen <smo...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > > > On Oct 25, 2015 12:53, "Jan Kratochvil" <jan.kratoch...@redhat.com> > wrote: > >> > >> On Sun, 25 Oct 2015 01:07:47 +0200, Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek wrote: > >> > I built 4.1 for rawhide. If that checks out to be OK, I can push > >> > an update for F23 also. > >> > >> I do not understand why a major rebase could be permitted after all the > >> F-23 > >> freezing stages? It may cause FTBFSes or even broken builds. What is > >> then > >> all the release engineering good for? Why not to just run Rawhide then? > >> > > > > I have to agree. I have been bitten too many times by minor tweaks > breaking > > builds in the OS. However the rules where a completely frozen build > system > > was causing problems in the past so I am expecting make is considered > less > > important than gcc? > > We have been shipping gcc bugfix updates all the time ... there is no > reason why we shouldn't do the same for make. > > And unlike major gcc bumps, make bumps don't require mass rebuilds, since it's just a user tool and things don't link to it.
-- 真実はいつも一つ！/ Always, there's only one truth!
-- devel mailing list devel@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
