On Monday 16 February 2009, Otavio Salvador wrote: > The way buildscript does is completely different the way I was thinking > about doing it. The script calls cowbuilder to make all required stuff > in a chroot not messing with the machine where we're building it. That is probably of some benefit. If you want to make the effort, *shrug*. I'm still not convinced that we really need (or want to maintain!) two scripts that essentially do the same thing, and IMO anybody doing these builds should already have their build machine set up to build udebs anyway. It's not like we have any huge or really weird demands, only a bunch of fairly simple build-deps. > I don't intend it to be run at really regular basis but mostly when > we're preparing the release and we have it mostly "stable"; another > good reason to have it is to make easier to Christian to build images > and test languages. On that basis, i.e. if it is only going to be used for informal, ad-hoc builds that we never "publish" or do general calls for testing for, then I'm fine with it. Following up on any feedback will then always be the responsibility of the person who did the build. Possibly both the existing 'buildscript' and your variant should set something that shows up in hardware-summary to indicate that it's an SVN build.
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.