phil at bolthole.com
Thu Sep 24 23:25:56 CEST 2009
On Thu, Sep 24, 2009 at 2:10 PM, Dagobert Michelsen <dam at opencsw.org> wrote:
>> Why not "make a gar package" straight up, instead of going halfway?
>> We badly need it. and Dago is too busy to do it :)
> Partly, yes. But we already have it in mgar/pkg/gar. However, this would
> only be useful if every commit to GAR would trigger a rebuild (buildbot?)
> And source packages.
I wouldnt say "only be useful". It is still useful.
Consider that most projects dont do "releases" every time someone
changes something in subversion.
Creating a new package, would be equivalent to "doing a release".
>> A suggestion: I personally think a package layout that makes sense for
>> that would be:
>> 1. CSWgar - a package of "the gar build system/utilities",
>> independant of anything else
>> 2. CSWcswgar - a layer on top of CSWgar, that adds in all the OpenCSW
>> specific stuff, to generic GAR, plus adds in a subversion dependancy,
> I disagree here. Either you choose source packages with a packaged
> GAR or "developer mode" with Bens base and GAR and build descriptions
> from the repository. Mixed mode calls for trouble.
You seem to be discounting the notion of "get GAR accepted as a good
build system in its own right".
If you dont provide a "separate", generic package of GAR, that will
It should not be much more effort, so why not do it? It would probably
keep GAR design cleaner that way too.
Consider Apache, and Ant.
(not that I LIKE ant... but its the general principle of separation
that I respect there :-)
More information about the maintainers