Bugs item #562400, was opened at 2002-05-30 08:19 Message generated for change (Comment added) made by bernardli You can respond by visiting: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=109368&aid=562400&group_id=9368
Category: None Group: Future Status: Open Resolution: None Priority: 7 Submitted By: Michael Chase-Salerno (mchasal) Assigned to: Jeff Squyres (jsquyres) Summary: Build arch packages Initial Comment: We should change the packaging to build seperate tarballs for i386, ia64,... The OSCAR tarball is getting larger due to the inclusion of packages for both architectures. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- >Comment By: Bernard Li (bernardli) Date: 2005-01-21 08:36 Message: Logged In: YES user_id=879102 - this is a good idea and should be addressed in future releases ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Comment By: Jeff Squyres (jsquyres) Date: 2002-06-01 06:59 Message: Logged In: YES user_id=11722 Sounds good. I agree that the distribution package is getting a bit large, but let's defer this until 1.3.1 (earliest). I took the liberty of changing this to group "1.4" and marking the priority down to 7. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Comment By: Richard Ferri (richferri) Date: 2002-06-01 03:06 Message: Logged In: YES user_id=62315 Jeff, it sounds like we do need special code at packaging time, probably more code than we intend to put in 1.3 given its beta status. I'd like to punt this defect to 1.3.1 or later given the timeframe and complexity... ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Comment By: Jeff Squyres (jsquyres) Date: 2002-05-31 19:49 Message: Logged In: YES user_id=11722 Yes, that makes perfect sense -- got it. My question is still relevant, though, because some packages may have ix86 RPMs but not ia64 RPMs (e.g., PBS). So it's not quite as simple as "grab all noarch and ia64 RPMs" and "grab all noarch and i?86 RPMs". Plus, some RPMs are i386 and some are i586. So the algorithm to select the proper RPM for each package becomes non-trivial. I was trying to say that I think this is not necessarily an easy issue -- we have special perl code to do this at install time; do we have to use that same perl code at package time as well? ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Comment By: Jeff Squyres (jsquyres) Date: 2002-05-31 19:45 Message: Logged In: YES user_id=11722 (just to record Rich's comments in the bug tracker -- because stoopid SF has decided [again] that it won't e-mail me anything... arrghh!) Regarding you comment on breaking up the tarballs for IA-64 and x86. The motivation behind the defect is simply that the tarballs have gotten too big, and it would be groovy if we could reduce the size by having separate tarballs. So, I imagine we're going to have an x86 tarball that has x86 specific and noarch stuff; and an ia-64 tarball that has ia-64 and noarch stuff. Some stuff will ship in both tarballs, and some of the packaging scripts will be reused. Does that help at all, or am I just shooting my mouth off (again?) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Comment By: Jeff Squyres (jsquyres) Date: 2002-05-31 17:46 Message: Logged In: YES user_id=11722 Clarification... So there should be a distribution tarball for each major architecture: ix86 and ia64. How should this be separated? For example, some packages have noarch RPMs, and some have both ix86 and ia64 RPMs. switcher has noarch, ix86, and ia64 RPMs. There's non-trivial perl code that selects which RPM to use during installation -- should we re-use this code for building the distribution packages? ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Comment By: Richard Ferri (richferri) Date: 2002-05-31 11:27 Message: Logged In: YES user_id=62315 Jeff, I assigned this to you as our packaging guru. If you feel this is too big an issue for 1.3, we will postpone to 1.3.1 or 1.4 -- your call. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Comment By: Richard Ferri (richferri) Date: 2002-05-31 11:18 Message: Logged In: YES user_id=62315 Jeff, I assigned this to you as our packaging guru. If you feel this is too big an issue for 1.3, we will postpone to 1.3.1 or 1.4 -- your call. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- You can respond by visiting: https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=109368&aid=562400&group_id=9368 ------------------------------------------------------- This SF.Net email is sponsored by: IntelliVIEW -- Interactive Reporting Tool for open source databases. Create drag-&-drop reports. Save time by over 75%! Publish reports on the web. Export to DOC, XLS, RTF, etc. Download a FREE copy at http://www.intelliview.com/go/osdn_nl _______________________________________________ Oscar-devel mailing list [email protected] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/oscar-devel
