[arch-dev-public] Doing a rebuild of [core]?

[Allan McRae]

On 18/11/10 15:52, Andreas Radke wrote:
> Am Thu, 18 Nov 2010 14:16:34 +1000
> schrieb "Allan McRae"<allan at archlinux.org>:
>
>> Hi,
>>
>> I was thinking of doing a fairly large rebuild of packages in [core]
>> for the following reasons:
>>
>>    - The toolchain is quite good at the moment and many packages have
>> not been built in a long time so could use a refresher build to take
>> advantage of what the newer toolchain offers (~15 packages are>  1
>> year old).  I expect a toolchain update to happen in the next few
>> weeks so this is a good time.
>
> What update do you expect? Usually a rebuild is useful to catch
> up latest major gcc improvements. Gcc4.6 is still in an early
> stage. Maybe we should delay it until the gcc4.6 release.

I expect binutils in the next couple of weeks (they have branched) and 
probably a glibc release given Fedora 14 is released with what is 
usually considered an RC glibc release.

Gcc-4.6 is actually in stage 3 (bug fix only), but they still have a 
large number of P1 bugs to get rid of before release.  But given it took 
a few months to sort out the toolchain issues after the initial gcc-4.5 
release, I would much prefer doing this before gcc-4.6...

> The toolchain improvements over the last 2 years were of minor
> advantages. So I don't expect major performance improvements.
>
> Getting the packages into xz compression format and pkg pool would be
> nice though.
>
> One concern for a rebuild right now: most packagers allowed for
> pushing packages into core haven't been much online lately. Not sure
> if they can spend that much time. Sadly "makeworld" has died. But I
> remember Daniel made such a rebuild script locally (was at gcc4.3
> release?).

Fair point.  I was never expecting much help actually doing the rebuilds 
as this is a very low priority task... and keeping [core] as pristine as 
possible is probably not much of an obsession for people other than me! 
  Also, there is no real rush in getting this done.   So I do not think 
packaging manpower will be an issue as long as people can give signoffs 
for the packages that are built.

Allan