On Nov 29, 2010, at 2:02 AM, Steve McInerney wrote: > On Tue, 2010-11-23 at 17:01 -0500, Gary Poster wrote: >> On Nov 18, 2010, at 2:06 PM, Maris Fogels wrote: >>> On 11/18/2010 01:12 PM, Jonathan Lange wrote: >>>> I don't see how having a clear step "make deploy" that depends on >>>> "make build" would invite hiccoughs in production. >>>> >>>> jml >>>> >>> >>> Jono, I think having a "make deploy" target is a great idea, and >> would help make >>> the root Makefile more readable. >> >> As you'd expect, this would need to be coordinated with the LOSAs, so >> their scripts are also updated. >> >> Also, at that time it would probably be reasonable to reconsider the >> names we have for the LOSAs generally. ``make compile`` is useful for >> deploying non-app-server boxes, for instance. > > > AIUI, one of the issues we've stumbled over before is the clash in > producing binaries for 32bit vs 64bit servers (I believe this problem is > slowly going away. slowly.)
Yes. We now only pre-produce eggs because of this. On the bright side, that's by far the largest expense. The last I heard, pre-Lucid, the Mailman box was the only one that was still 32 bit. Dunno about now. > > But if we can pre-build everything but the actual binaries that > would/should help enormously with deployments. We do that now *except* for the parts that can't be built without sourcecode (non-egg) binaries--which includes the JS stuff and the WADL stuff, for instance. If we switch to all 64-bit, then we might be able to do more relatively easily. Even without that, we could build a bit more--the WADL and the JS in particular--on pras, but it would introduce more fragility (because the target would have to build the whole tree, and then selectively clean only the 64-bit-specific bits, which we might get wrong, and which might be hard to maintain). I've not considered it a likely win, myself, but the possibility is certainly there. > > ie. > "pre-deploy-build" on prasé. > "deploy-compile" on end servers > > kind of thing. > > ?? > > >> "build_eggs" is the target for the build machine. It does have >> comments, happily. It would not be affected by the proposed "deploy" >> target. > > Hrm. I think I'm just repeating what you've said... :-) _______________________________________________ Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~launchpad-dev Post to : [email protected] Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~launchpad-dev More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
