pauls-diff, quinn's diff (was: Jade DONE and working!)
On Mon 16 Nov 1998, James Troup wrote:
> Paul Slootman <paul@wau.mis.ah.nl> writes:
>
> > > On an other subject subject: does anybody know of some scripts to
> > > automate the task of checking which packages need to be
> > > recompiled, doing the compilation and the uploading without
> > > intervention (at least for the non-critical packages). Something
> > > liking Quinn's diff and the dbuild package?
> >
> > My diff script can output a list of source urls (well, guesses in
> > some cases as the source filename can't always be determined
> > correctly in my experience). I believe dbuild accepts such a list of
> > urls.
>
> Eh? Quinn diff gives you enough info to generate URLs too
> (i.e. accurate section[1] and version number for .dsc files).
I never said it didn't :-) I just said that my script can generate them
itself. I only made my version because I found the quinn diff output a
bit verbose and unsorted (i.e. "not built yet" and "out of date"
together). Personal preference... and it was an opportunity to do some
perl hacking again :-)
> > Also, there are packages that need mutually exclusive build
> > environments, e.g. some need gtk1 and some need gtk1.1, and you
> > can't have both development versions installed simultaneously. This
> > type of build problem stands in the way of a "make world" scenario
> > (and hence in a fully automated build system).
>
> sbuild handles this. I'd strongly suggest you guys consider buildd,
> it's about as automated as I think is sane and a lot of the problems
> of automated building have already been hashed out.
>
> A buildd could be setup on faure, but unless the humans start using
> wanna-build they'll be no end of duplicated work
I think that faure indeed needs a buildd setup. First, though, it needs
the NFS mounts working again...
> [1] How does your perl script handle getting the source section right
> by the way? (I can't check right now for myself, will later)
It uses the info in the Packages file, not very intelligently at the
moment. As I never needed this info (it was added at the suggestion of
Lars Wirzenius (sp?)), I didn't pay that much attention to it.
It could do better, by looking at the section of the package which has
the name of the source package (if a "Source:" line is present in a
package's description). It now simply takes the section in which a
given package exists. However, again, I don't really need it...
Paul Slootman
--
home: paul@wurtel.demon.nl | work: paul@murphy.nl | debian: paul@debian.org
http://www.wurtel.demon.nl | Murphy Software, Enschede, the Netherlands
Reply to: