Bug#790241: 0.9.1 is out
Hi Andrii, Paolo, all, Just wanted to ask how the work is going? Do you need support? Thanks and all the best, Georg signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Bug#790241: 0.9.1 is out
Hi Paolo, I'm going to prepare and upload 0.8.14 (both master and slave) based on the old git repositories asap. This is to assure that if it's not possible to prepare 0.9.x for stretch then we'll at least have the last of the previous major version thus we'll won't break the people's setup badly. I hope to fix most of the issues in the BTS with this release. Once this is done I'll gladly switch to working on 0.9.x. Here are some points you could have missed: - in addition to the "buildbot" and "buildbot-worker" Python packages upstream now ships its web interface in the separate package called "buildbot-www" that is built into standard Python module with nodejs and friends; - "buildbot-www" also has modular architecture and provides some plugins out of the box; - additional plugins can be developed using package called "buildbot-pkg" that is available in the upstream repository as well. As for your points: I agree on every point though this won't be too easy. Perhaps we should start by providing binary packages for master and worker in experimental and then grow the number of packages. -- Best regards, Andrii Senkovych 2016-11-14 15:14 GMT+02:00 Paolo Greppi : > Hi and thanks for the suggestion. > > While I wait for my *-guest account to join collab-main and somebody to > pick up the RFP for RAMLfications I have noticed that: > > - upstream has renamed the buildslave component "worker", also on pypi: > https://pypi.python.org/pypi/buildbot-worker > > - the upstream git repo https://github.com/buildbot/buildbot has the > code for both the master component (which matches the Debian buildbot > package) and the worker component (which matches the Debian > buildbot-slave package) > > therefore I **think** that: > > - we should rename the buildbot-slave package to buildbot-worker > > - we should generate both buildbot and buildbot-worker binary packages > from the same source package "buildbot" > > - we can forget about the tarballs on pypi; debian/watch should point to > the https://github.com/buildbot/buildbot/tags > > - the packaging for 0.9.1 should start from a fresh git repo; reusing > https://github.com/buildbot/debian-buildbot and > https://github.com/buildbot/debian-buildbot-slave is possible by > manually transferring the files / patches, but the upstream branch will > be radically different > > what do you think ? > > Paolo > > On 10/11/2016 13:54, Andrii Senkovych wrote: >> Hi Paolo, >> >> I think collab-maint is the right place for it. Also, what did you use >> as an upstream source? Was it pip URL or the repo on github? I think >> we should move to the github repo because buildbot-www package is >> already a build artifact produced by build procedures from github >> repo. That's where nodejs and friends come in. Granted, buildbot as a >> standalone pip package does not need nodejs to be built. >> >> Info on collab-maint and collaborative maintenance of the package: >> https://wiki.debian.org/Alioth/Git
Bug#790241: 0.9.1 is out
Hi and thanks for the suggestion. While I wait for my *-guest account to join collab-main and somebody to pick up the RFP for RAMLfications I have noticed that: - upstream has renamed the buildslave component "worker", also on pypi: https://pypi.python.org/pypi/buildbot-worker - the upstream git repo https://github.com/buildbot/buildbot has the code for both the master component (which matches the Debian buildbot package) and the worker component (which matches the Debian buildbot-slave package) therefore I **think** that: - we should rename the buildbot-slave package to buildbot-worker - we should generate both buildbot and buildbot-worker binary packages from the same source package "buildbot" - we can forget about the tarballs on pypi; debian/watch should point to the https://github.com/buildbot/buildbot/tags - the packaging for 0.9.1 should start from a fresh git repo; reusing https://github.com/buildbot/debian-buildbot and https://github.com/buildbot/debian-buildbot-slave is possible by manually transferring the files / patches, but the upstream branch will be radically different what do you think ? Paolo On 10/11/2016 13:54, Andrii Senkovych wrote: > Hi Paolo, > > I think collab-maint is the right place for it. Also, what did you use > as an upstream source? Was it pip URL or the repo on github? I think > we should move to the github repo because buildbot-www package is > already a build artifact produced by build procedures from github > repo. That's where nodejs and friends come in. Granted, buildbot as a > standalone pip package does not need nodejs to be built. > > Info on collab-maint and collaborative maintenance of the package: > https://wiki.debian.org/Alioth/Git
Bug#790241: 0.9.1 is out
Hi Paolo, I think collab-maint is the right place for it. Also, what did you use as an upstream source? Was it pip URL or the repo on github? I think we should move to the github repo because buildbot-www package is already a build artifact produced by build procedures from github repo. That's where nodejs and friends come in. Granted, buildbot as a standalone pip package does not need nodejs to be built. Info on collab-maint and collaborative maintenance of the package: https://wiki.debian.org/Alioth/Git -- Best regards, Andrii Senkovych 2016-11-10 14:25 GMT+02:00 Paolo Greppi : > Control: retitle 790241 please package 0.9.1 > > I have given it a try, and found that it requires RAMLfications (see the > RFP: https://bugs.debian.org/843882) > > For buildbot, I have set up a local git repo using the git-buildpackage > branch / tag standard (the VCS link pointed to by tracker.d.o is not > compatible with gbp). Assuming someone is willing to help, where would I > push the git repo ? (I would not like to host it on github) > > P >
Bug#790241: 0.9.1 is out
Control: retitle 790241 please package 0.9.1 I have given it a try, and found that it requires RAMLfications (see the RFP: https://bugs.debian.org/843882) For buildbot, I have set up a local git repo using the git-buildpackage branch / tag standard (the VCS link pointed to by tracker.d.o is not compatible with gbp). Assuming someone is willing to help, where would I push the git repo ? (I would not like to host it on github) P signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
