On 12 February 2016 at 01:19, Barry Warsaw <ba...@python.org> wrote: > On Feb 11, 2016, at 01:58 PM, Nick Coghlan wrote: >>Anyway, the core point is wanting to ensure we can automate not only >>"direct to binary" installation with Python specific tools, but also >>the "convert to alternate source archive format and build from there" >>workflows needed by redistributor ecosystems like Linux distros, >>conda, Canopy, PyPM, Nix, etc. > > Cool. > > Note that not even all Debian-based distros are equal here. For example, in > Debian, especially for architecture independent (i.e. pure-Python) packages, > the source package to binary package step happens on the maintainer's local > system, while in Ubuntu we upload the source package and let the centrally > maintained build daemons produce the resulting binary packages.
Yeah, Fedora is closer to the Ubuntu set up, with a centralised git backed build service (Koji), and tools for submitting build requests to that: * https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Package_maintenance_guide * https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Package_update_HOWTO In my ideal world, for previously reviewed packages, the path from PyPI release, through the Anitya release monitoring service and the Taskotron CI service, to updating Fedora Rawhide would be, if not fully automated, at least not much more work than clicking an "Approve" button after getting a green light from Taskotron and reading the upstream release notes. Cheers, Nick. -- Nick Coghlan | ncogh...@gmail.com | Brisbane, Australia _______________________________________________ Distutils-SIG maillist - Distutils-SIG@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/distutils-sig
