Ben Walton <[email protected]> writes: > Excerpts from Dagobert Michelsen's message of Mon Aug 03 15:06:16 -0400 2009: > >> I like this approach - it is simple. We are talking about the >> packages of three maintainers here. Phil, Peter, James: Would you be >> willing to commit your recipes to the repository with these three >> entry points? > > ...I've thought about this more over the weekend and I think that it > is important that the standard trunk/branches/tags convention be > maintained even for things not using GAR. Maybe a script in the 'top > level' for each package named 'build' that can be any executable > (either driving the make, or running whatever scripted steps are > desirable as per James' comments) that had as the only requirement the > final production of package files (no patch/build/package > intermediates...no args). > > Sticking to svn best practices will make it easier in the future if > it's ever wanted/needed to move from svn to something else. No > intermediate steps makes it much easier for everyone to wrap up what > already exists for their non-GAR packaging.
Subversion it's alright. Lets not move too far in the future as some are still in the far past... who said SCCS? Oh my, I used this for 10 years in the 80s and 90s. > What do people think of this? [Specifically those not using GAR...] The issue with this is that to work I need to commit in an additional repository, from my point of view who has one here, hundreds of components among them: the build system and the recipes; also it will be necessary to adapt my build system in the buildbot context --- don't tell me that it isn't the case, I have many years of regression testing, which implies automatic builds. Thus, as I wrote earlier, I don't think that I have the motivation to find the energy to do this. -- Peter _______________________________________________ maintainers mailing list [email protected] https://lists.opencsw.org/mailman/listinfo/maintainers
