On Sat, Feb 13, 2016 at 12:45:33AM -0000, Nish Aravamudan wrote:
> > No; the package will just build differently when building with old vs. new
> > pkg-php-tools, but that's ok, it just results in a no-change rebuild to the
> > package once the new pkg-php-tools is available. And no-change rebuilds are
> > a lot cheaper to batch.
> Will that automatically happen or should I document this as also needing
> to be rebuilt?
Please document this as also requiring a rebuild.
The preference from my side is to, as much as possible, bootstrap with
pristine sources from the Ubuntu archive. So if packages can be changed to
support a stage1 build profile, and be uploaded to the archive now, I
believe it's better to do this and get this in the archive now; then
afterwards do stage1 bootstrap builds, and finally do no-change rebuilds to
the archive. This lets us separate the "bootstrap" process from the
"sourceful changes" process, and reduce the risk of misbuilds or
mis-uploads.
On Sat, Feb 13, 2016 at 12:45:33AM -0000, Nish Aravamudan wrote:
> > No; the package will just build differently when building with old vs. new
> > pkg-php-tools, but that's ok, it just results in a no-change rebuild to the
> > package once the new pkg-php-tools is available. And no-change rebuilds are
> > a lot cheaper to batch.
> Will that automatically happen or should I document this as also needing
> to be rebuilt?
Please document this as also requiring a rebuild.
The preference from my side is to, as much as possible, bootstrap with
pristine sources from the Ubuntu archive. So if packages can be changed to
support a stage1 build profile, and be uploaded to the archive now, I
believe it's better to do this and get this in the archive now; then
afterwards do stage1 bootstrap builds, and finally do no-change rebuilds to
the archive. This lets us separate the "bootstrap" process from the
"sourceful changes" process, and reduce the risk of misbuilds or
mis-uploads.