30.09.2010 19:35, Martin Hejl пишет: > We also have the requirement (per Sourceforge terms of use) to provide > the sources for a binary release in the FRS (which we currently don't > do, since according to the link Mike provided, having those sources in > CVS is not sufficient). > > So, looking for a different SCM, might be interesting (and > possibly/probably provide benefits) - but it doesn't address the issue > that we're not providing sources for binary releases in FRS.
Source availability requirements are applicable for all versioning systems, or only for CVS? It's said in rules that "SourceForge.net requires that source code releases be made via our File Release System for any binary releases made via our File Release System *or any other project resource* . The presence of matching source code within CVS does not meet our source availability requirements. " - and it's right position, because deleted files from CVS becomes unavailable at all - instead of other versioning systems, where deleted files are still available addressing to earlier commits. > I'm not emotionally attached to buildtool - if we can find something > that's better (and find somebody who does the work of porting everything > we currently have in buildtool), I see no reason not to switch. > > Same goes with CVS - I don't really care which SCM the sources are saved > in. > Why we need to switch into other building system now, with SCM switching? IMHO it's possible to use buildtool with other SCM's - they also have web-interface. > I'm just not sure that the project has the manpower for replacing > buildtool and migrating to a different SCM right now - and for the > project, it's probably better, if people work on getting bering-uClibc4 > "production ready". But if there's manpower to do both (and overhaul the > webpage and docs), that would be great. > > As always, I don't speak for anybody but myself. > > Martin If somebody will offer easy-to-understand building system (comparable to buildtool) and can help with package porting - it'll be good. buildtool isn't ideal, it has some cons (for ex., it needs experiments with configure options and sometimes - source patching to build working binary). Possible Gentoo sandbox with it's portage system will be useful - but I haven't much experiments with it; I just build x86 image for tftp boot on my x86_64 box into x86 chroot. Possible it'll be adapted easily for (cross-)compilation in chroot - with some external scripts... ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Start uncovering the many advantages of virtual appliances and start using them to simplify application deployment and accelerate your shift to cloud computing. http://p.sf.net/sfu/novell-sfdev2dev _______________________________________________ leaf-devel mailing list leaf-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/leaf-devel
