[csw-maintainers] Buildbot

Peter FELECAN pfelecan at opencsw.org
Tue Aug 4 17:26:47 CEST 2009

Ben Walton <bwalton at opencsw.org> writes:

> Excerpts from Dagobert Michelsen's message of Mon Aug 03 15:06:16 -0400 2009:
>> I like this approach - it is simple. We are talking about the
>> packages of three maintainers here. Phil, Peter, James: Would you be
>> willing to commit your recipes to the repository with these three
>> entry points?
> ...I've thought about this more over the weekend and I think that it
> is important that the standard trunk/branches/tags convention be
> maintained even for things not using GAR.  Maybe a script in the 'top
> level' for each package named 'build' that can be any executable
> (either driving the make, or running whatever scripted steps are
> desirable as per James' comments) that had as the only requirement the
> final production of package files (no patch/build/package
> intermediates...no args).
> Sticking to svn best practices will make it easier in the future if
> it's ever wanted/needed to move from svn to something else.  No
> intermediate steps makes it much easier for everyone to wrap up what
> already exists for their non-GAR packaging.

Subversion it's alright. Lets not move too far in the future as some are
still in the far past... who said SCCS? Oh my, I used this for 10 years
in the 80s and 90s.

> What do people think of this?  [Specifically those not using GAR...]

The issue with this is that to work I need to commit in an additional
repository, from my point of view who has one here, hundreds of
components among them: the build system and the recipes; also it will be
necessary to adapt my build system in the buildbot context --- don't
tell me that it isn't the case, I have many years of regression testing,
which implies automatic builds. Thus, as I wrote earlier, I don't think
that I have the motivation to find the energy to do this.

More information about the maintainers mailing list