[csw-maintainers] raw "build" api for our subversion tree now up for discussion

Maciej (Matchek) Blizinski maciej at opencsw.org
Fri Oct 23 14:44:28 CEST 2009


On Thu, Oct 22, 2009 at 5:38 PM, Philip Brown <phil at bolthole.com> wrote:
> Ok, so we have previously had the issue raised, of a standard api for
> builds, to allow things to be checked into our subversion tree, that
> do NOT use the gar build system.
>
> I have now taken a step towards getting this official, by writing up
> the following:
>
> http://sourceforge.net/apps/trac/gar/wiki/RawAPI

Thanks for doing that!

> Please note that the prior suggestion on the mailing list, was to have
> the top entrypoint be "build". However, in order to avoid potential
> conflicts with "upstream", yet still keep it relatively short, I
> thought we should call it "cswbuild".

Looks good to me.

> I think the rest is fairly self-explanitory and obvious. There are a
> few things that most definately should be discussed.
> One is of course, if there are objections to that name.
> Another, is whether the "mandatory support" section is too small.

I that the main mandatory requirement should be that the packages
which are sent to the release manager must be built using this api, on
a clean filesystem, on the buildfarm:

svn co http://repo-url/pkg/foo
cd foo
./cswbuild

> Another, is the issue of "where does the result go"?

A couple of options:

- the same directory as the script
- a subdirectory with a standard name
- a directory specified in an environment variable
- a directory specified in a configuration file on disk

> I am not familiar with how "gar" does it. Perhaps people who are
> already familiar with gar, will suggest good ways to make the two
> somewhat consistent, while at the same time, resisting the urge to try
> to turn this into gar ;-)

It's specified in ~/.garrc, I don't think it's a good location for the
general solution. Perhaps a more general configuration file in the
home directory would do the trick?

> Please note, that the overall goal of this, is to encourage people
> whose source code is not in subversion, to migrate it into subversion
> with a minimum of change.
> Therefore, people in that category are the ones most strongly
> encouraged to take part in this discussion.

Are there any other build systems in use in our project? If so, is
their source code publicly available?

Maciej



More information about the maintainers mailing list