<html><body style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space; ">
Hi Gary,<div><br><div><div>Am 01.11.2008 um 13:17 schrieb Gary Law:</div><blockquote type="cite"><div class="gmail_quote"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;"><div style=""><div><div><div class="Ih2E3d"><blockquote type="cite"><div style="font-family: verdana,sans-serif;" class="gmail_quote"><div><span>> * **Release Process**.</span></div><div><br>You might want to take a look at Hudson, which is a nice Continuous Integration server that I've used for automated builds in the past.</div></div></blockquote> <div><br></div></div>Like this :-)</div><div> <a href="http://buildfarm.opencsw.org/hudson/" target="_blank">http://buildfarm.opencsw.org/hudson/</a></div></div></div></blockquote><div><br><span style="font-family: verdana,sans-serif;">Oh fantastic. If you dive deep enough through the links eventually absolute links to:</span><br style="font-family: verdana,sans-serif;"> <span style="font-family: verdana,sans-serif;"><a href="http://hudson:8070">http://hudson:8070</a></span><br style="font-family: verdana,sans-serif;"><span style="font-family: verdana,sans-serif;">start appearing, which don't work.</span></div></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>Oops. Trygve, any clues how to fix this?</div><div><br></div><div><blockquote type="cite"><div class="gmail_quote"><div><span style="font-family: verdana, sans-serif; ">Still, this is completely the right way to go IMHO. I'll try and get my packages in there.</span></div></div></blockquote><div><br></div>This will be done automatically once we have single package</div><div>checkout in GAR. Auto-build on commit :-)<br><br><blockquote type="cite"><div class="gmail_quote"><div><br></div></div></blockquote></div><blockquote type="cite"><div class="gmail_quote"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;"><div style=""><div><div class="Ih2E3d"><div><blockquote type="cite"><div style="font-family: verdana,sans-serif;" class="gmail_quote"> (*) I've got one more, and this is probably going to be a little controversial... we should move out of /opt/csw and into /opt/opencsw. Blastwave Inc is still distributing into /opt/csw and the scope for end user confusion and incompatible software releases is huge. Although this sounds like a lot of work, if everything is in GAR, and everything needs to be rebuilt for Sol 9 in the next six months, it's really not a lot of extra work. I've got big reservations about maintaining stuff through opencsw that installs into /opt/csw.</div> </blockquote><br></div></div><div>Difficult. *If* we change the prefix, then there must be a<br></div><div>converter for installation to go from csw/ to opencsw/, but</div><div>personally I would like to postpone that until we see how</div> <div>each project performs. Discussion welcome.</div><br></div></div></blockquote></div><br><span style="font-family: verdana,sans-serif;">Like changing to GAR only, it would be impossible overnight. But set a target date six months out, and I think it's realistic to get everything rebuilt, out of version controlled repo, off the new minimum standard (Solaris 9). We might loose a few packages or maintainers along the way, but end up in a much better place for running and maintaining the project long term.</span></blockquote><div><br></div><div>That would imply to also change the package prefix CSW to something else.</div><div>I completely agree that it is a Bad Thing(TM) to have two projects work</div><div>on the same prefix. However, the "inheritor" of CSW (Phil, after Alan</div><div>DuBoff) is at OpenCSW and most of the maintainers too. I don't know how</div><div>they feel about changing the prefix. Personally, I think OpenCSW has the</div><div>moral right to stick to /opt/csw, but that is just my opinion and I would</div><div>accept a majority decision on this of course.</div><div><br></div><div>Fellow maintainers, what do you think?</div><br><blockquote type="cite"><span style="font-family: verdana,sans-serif;">Also, what's the alternative? Having two projects targeting the same install path? That is not sustainable going forward and the project's credibility will suffer.</span></blockquote><br></div><div>The question is: will the maintainers here will accept leaving the</div><div>prefix to Blastwave and start with a new one.</div><div><br></div><div>Apart from that it would be cool to allow customized package trees</div><div>with different suffixes (e. g. like optimized trees for T1/T2).</div><div>However, that would impose quite an extra amount for package</div><div>maintainers (not for all, but there are nasty ones).</div><div><br></div><div><br></div><div>Best regards</div><div><br></div><div> -- Dago</div></div></body></html>