On 01/13/2013 01:46 PM, John Morris wrote: > On 01/13/2013 06:19 AM, Gilles Chanteperdrix wrote: >> On 01/13/2013 08:37 AM, John Morris wrote: >>> On 01/08/2013 02:25 PM, Gilles Chanteperdrix wrote: >>>> So, we tried and improved the I-pipe patches so that a single or a pair >>>> of kernels (SMP and UP) can be generated for each architecture. >>> >>> Great! This is the right way to go in order to increase adoption. >>> >>>> I started setting up a repository on the xenomai server, but obviously, >>>> can not do it for all distributions, so, any help is welcome. What I can >>>> propose is to set-up an inoticoming repository, give you access to an >>>> incoming repository through scp (you whould have to send me your ssh >>>> public key for that). Then, before a release, we would work to provide >>>> the corresponding debian and ubuntu packages. As for the fedora >>>> packages, I do not know the equivalent of reprepro and inoticoming. >>> >>> I've been thinking about what I can offer over the last few days. I'm >>> really too inexperienced with Deb-like distros and I'm poor at >>> maintenance. My solution would be to automate this chore with some type >>> of build infrastructure, but that would probably take me much longer >>> than someone else more at home with Debian. >> >> >> I have been thinking about that too. Actually, running my tests on x86 >> from the Debian package instead of custom build kernels does not change >> much (except the compilation time for the kernel, so, it has to be done >> once I have a working kernel). Though I am going to test only Debian >> stable, not Ubuntu. > > Understood. Actually, testing could be automated by installing the OS > with the kernel to be tested and run xeno-regression-test. That's some > infrastructure that I don't have ATM, but wouldn't be a huge leap. > >>> On the other hand, it would be quite easy for me to do this for el6 and, >>> once I have packages, Fedora, since we do have the automated build >>> infrastructure (and the expertise) in the shop that it wouldn't be >>> difficult. In this case, it would be easiest to keep a git repo of the >>> RPM files online (just like the one I recently pointed to in other >>> threads) to keep the development open, compile the packages on our >>> infrastructure, and rsync the resulting repo either to the xenomai.org >>> site, my site, or anywhere else suitable. The only piece missing would >>> be a public view of the build system (called 'koji', the same as the >>> Fedora project uses), which could come in time if we choose. >>> >>> At any rate, I will certainly have my own el6 repo up soon, and I'll >>> announce it here for folks to try out. >> >> >> Ok, as you wish, it is not really a problem for us to provide you with a >> git access, and an access to set-up a repository. At any rate, whatever >> we do, we should also have a page in the wiki explaining how to get the >> Fedora packages. > > Ok, thanks. Taking the lazy approach, let's wait until my repos are up, > and then see what looks like the best option.
Hi Gilles, I put up an experimental PPA with 2.6.2.1 release packages for Ubuntu 12.04 Precise: http://wiki.linuxcnc.org/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?XenomaiKernelPackages The packages are not good for anything except initial testing, and I've asked the folks on the emc-devel list to give them a try. The first success has been reported, but there may not be many testers until packages are available for Ubuntu 10.04 Lucid, where current LinuxCNC users are stuck. I have working EL6 packages too, but haven't put up a repository yet; hopefully in the next couple of days. My project depends on LinuxCNC and therefore Xenomai, and I plan to maintain the RedHat packages myself. I haven't decided exactly what to do about the Debian packages yet, but I need to ensure quality, up-to-date .deb packages are maintained for x86 architecture for at least a couple of years. John _______________________________________________ Xenomai mailing list [email protected] http://www.xenomai.org/mailman/listinfo/xenomai
