[csw-maintainers] confused newbie

[Dagobert Michelsen]

Hi Wojtek,

Am 12.03.2009 um 10:26 schrieb Wojtek Meler:
> There is quite a lot of docs with info what to do to add a package to
> CSW, it is good, but it can be improved :).
>
> I started with docs:
>
> http://www.opencsw.org/standards/
> http://www.opencsw.org/standards/welcome
> http://www.opencsw.org/standards/core_principles
>
> After that I decided to start building package with instructions from
>
> http://www.opencsw.org/standards/pkg-walkthrough
>
> GAR is metioned there as alternative method for maintainers, which I
> read as "if you are advanced maintainer you could try to use it for  
> your
> own risk because it is cool".
>
> I think it is easier to use GAR than following HOWTO instructions, and
> it has more value, so why not to recommend GAR for all - you don't  
> even
> have to be maintainer to use it, as svn read access is for all.

You are right. The pkg-walkthrough is more for the interested maintainer
who wants to know how things are done by hand, but IMHO this should be
enhanced to be the starting point:
   <http://apps.sourceforge.net/mediawiki/gar/index.php?title=GAR_Tutorial 
 >

> There is also stated:
>
> "Don't forget the "other" architecture(s) !
> Now you get to do it ALL OVER AGAIN, on the other build machine!"
>
> It forced me to build package on all systems which breaks the rule
> "single package for all solaris revs of a cpu". I think that technote
> from http://www.opencsw.org/standards/core_principles should be  
> reminded
>  there.

I also asked this sometime ago and there was no conclusion. I see two
directions to go:

(1) Build one package for sparc and i386 and dispatch everything else  
inside
     the package for NFS-sharing
(2) Build separate packages for each OS version if needed (e. g. top  
and lsof)

We should decide if we stick with (1) or (2).
Personally, I think NFS-sharing is bad, because for many packages it is
difficult to cleanly roll out. This is at least true for all packages  
starting
daemons and worse for packages using SMF.

> And what about hudson? shall I use it? how?

It is AFAIK experimental. Or, Trygve, is Hudson ready for day-to-day  
use?


Best regards

   -- Dago