On Wed, 2007-03-14 at 16:48 +0000, Paul wrote:
> On Wednesday 14 March 2007 11:14, Philippe Gerum wrote:
> > On Wed, 2007-03-14 at 11:59 +0100, Gilles Chanteperdrix wrote:
> > > Philippe Gerum wrote:
> > > > On Tue, 2007-03-13 at 20:32 +0000, Paul wrote:
> > > >>Hi Philippe
> > > >>
> > > >>On Tuesday 13 March 2007 16:30, Philippe Gerum wrote:
> > > >>>>A question for the project admins: Do you have a Release Manager to
> > > >>>>coordinate package releases ?
> > > >>>
> > > >>>I'm currently coordinating the Xenomai releases, with input from the
> > > >>>sub-systems/architecture maintainers. I guess that by "package", you
> > > >>> are referring to another division of the work, though.
> > > >>
> > > >>By "package", I mean binaries in the form of *.deb and/or *.rpm -
> > > >> Whilst I'm happy to build and host i386/x86 Debian packages, I'm
> > > >> concerned about treading on someone's toes without a discussion about
> > > >> revision numbers and general policy about "official" releases.
> > > >
> > > > So far, we don't have an established policy for making distro-oriented
> > > > packages; a few people have contributed some of them from time to time,
> > > > but there is no "appointed" maintainer doing sustained work for the
> > > > project on this issue yet.
> > > >
> > > >> For example, the packages I've
> > > >>built to date have used 2.3.50 even although a tarball of that version
> > > >> hasn't been released.. That could well cause confusion for users and
> > > >> yourself if bugs are reported. There is also a minor problem with
> > > >> keeping the debian/changelog in sync.
> > > >>
> > > >> One possible answer is for me to rebuild my repository from scratch
> > > >> and append the SVN revision number to revision number so that we end
> > > >> up with 2.3.50-1~r2289 - This would allow an official 2.3.50-1 release
> > > >> to override the ~r2289 revision..
> > > >
> > > > It would be saner to use the commit number indeed, especially since it
> > > > allows decouple the package versioning from the source releases while
> > > > keeping a reference to a common history of changes.
> > >
> > > Do we really want to make debian packages with trunk ? Would not it make
> > > sense to only make debian packages from stable releases ?
> >
> > Not necessarily, the same way one may want to base his work on sid,
> > because some features only available in the development branch are
> > needed (e.g. support for multiple time bases is only available in the
> > trunk/ and not with 2.3.x, and one would need such feature to run
> > VxWorks and the POSIX skins in parallel for instance). Provided we do
> > have a non-confusing way to name such intermediate releases, of course.
> 
> With a Debian pool style of repository, the X.Y.50+rnnn packages would always 
> go in unstable (Sid) or even experimental. When the release number gets 
> bumped up to X.{Y+1}.0, it would go in testing (Etch), and when Etch becomes 
> the default "stable", any X.Y.0 releases would automatically migrate across.
> Bug fixes to X.Y.{0+n} would normally appear in testing and/or stable leaving 
> Sid to track the trunk of SVN - Primarily a repository management issue..
> 
> Following this proposal, the end user can opt for stable/testing or unstable. 
> Should he/she choose, it is a simple matter to "downgrade" from unstable or 
> track the unstable releases.. That said, I suspect most users would compile 
> from source, perhaps using the debian/rules as an aid to install/remove.. 
> Prebuilt binaries & kernels would most likely be used by people wanting to 
> try Xenomai before committing time to a patch/build cycle.
> 

Ack, hence the importance of having Xenomai work out of the box on
common hardware, so that succcesful tries lead to adoption.

> 
> Regards, Paul.
-- 
Philippe.



_______________________________________________
Xenomai-core mailing list
Xenomai-core@gna.org
https://mail.gna.org/listinfo/xenomai-core

Reply via email to