On 2015-02-12 22:18, Philipp Kern wrote: > On 2015-02-12 13:02, Holger Levsen wrote: >>> Possible avenues include updating the forks and working on making the >>> forks >>> no longer necessary. >> are these forks maintained in VCSs? > > http://anonscm.debian.org/cgit/buildd-tools/sbuild.git/log/?h=buildd-0.64 > > Historically forks have been needed because fixes in stable are hard. If > stuff breaks in testing or unstable you usually need to fix it quicker > than with a point release. A point could be made that the changes should > be pushed to stable instead. > > As far as I know there's also still no builddadm-maintainable puppet > tree. (Partly my fault I acknowledge, because I hoped to be able to do > rabbitmq, but failed working against a black box I don't understand.) If > we could ship the relevant helper scripts through Puppet (and unify > configuration) we could also make most of the fork moot and just > cherry-pick new versions from testing. > > Kind regards > Philipp Kern > >
For reference, Ansgar (CC'ed) have started to merge the branches (see [1]). I believe his short-term plan was to merge the general stuff into master, have that uploaded to unstable and then do a buildd specific version with the remaining Debian-specific parts. In the long term, we should definitely aim for having exactly one implementation of sbuild. We might need to optimise some of the processes for this to work. I believe DSA are usually happy with pulling from either proposed-updates and backports, so we should be able to find a suitable solution for getting timely fixes available on the Debian machines. Thanks, ~Niels [1] https://anonscm.debian.org/cgit/users/ansgar/sbuild.git/log/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [email protected] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [email protected] Archive: https://lists.debian.org/[email protected]
