On Mon, 20 Jul 2009, Stephan Kulow wrote:
Am Montag 20 Juli 2009 schrieb Richard Guenther:
They will be updated because they have a newer release (yes, the release for binary rpms is still $release.$rebuildcount). OK, that's a basic misunderstanding from my side then. Then remains one reason to sync the build counter: documentation. For base packages (your area) changes might always be associated with source changes, but for packages high up the stack, we often fix them by a rebuild and not by a checkin. And "the fix is in 2.10" is just much simpler to state than "the fix is in 2.27 on i586 and 2.39 on x86_64".
Well, if a rebuild fixes something then we should IMHO do conscious rebuilds by doing a (dummy) source upload. Like ------------------------------------------------------------------- Mon Jul 20 14:31:50 CEST 2009 - rguenther@suse.de - re-build with new gcc to fix miscompile that then even has a changelog that explains why this particular version is a good idea to update to. But now I am of course likely stepping on to many peoples toes again ... Heh, but it's hackweek. Nobody will force you to take my patches ;) Hacking RPM is so much fun! (not.) Richard. -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-factory+unsubscribe@opensuse.org For additional commands, e-mail: opensuse-factory+help@opensuse.org