Hi Peter, I really appreciate your testing. It's important for us as a project to have working code and instructions to set up a package building host. Our code is open, and I think that letting people to build packages on their own is the best way for us to go. It's hard for one person to do it, and I really value it that you're stepping in to help!
Perhaps current problems with testing stem from mismatch between your expectations and the current state of the world. I tried to make it very clear that we don't have fully working code[1]. I also described the situation in an email from 15th of August[2] and 23th of September[3]. To address your specific questions: When we were talking about things like "svn up", we were not talking about the current code or state of the repository, because current "svn up" does not yield working code. I meant "svn up" as a general notion of a command that downloads the newest version of the code from a repository. The ".buildsys/v2" path is not specific to the old or the new code. If you're working with the new code, you're still using the ".buildsys/v2" path, simply because the mgar BUILDSYS variable does nothing. If you look into mgar sources, you'll see that it's ignored. The only way to use a different build system with mgar, is to make a symlink. Therefore, the path is always the same. Back to the instructions, we have instructions for the old code which are in the consolidated document, and we have instructions for the new code, which are on the wiki[4]. When the new code is submitted into subversion and deployed on the buildfarm, the new instructions will be moved to the consolidated document. I'll read through the buildfarm setup document once more and I'll try to remove any ambiguities I find. I hope you and I will continue this testing and will manage to improve the situation. It requires more patience than anyone initially thought, but it's worth the effort. Maciej [1] http://lists.opencsw.org/pipermail/maintainers/2013-September/018602.html [2] http://lists.opencsw.org/pipermail/maintainers/2013-August/018475.html [3] http://lists.opencsw.org/pipermail/maintainers/2013-September/018604.html [4] http://wiki.opencsw.org/checkpkg#toc20
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
_______________________________________________ maintainers mailing list [email protected] https://lists.opencsw.org/mailman/listinfo/maintainers .:: This mailing list's archive is public. ::.
