[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: eliminating -source packages

On Mon, Jun 19, 2000 at 10:22:42PM -0400, Brian Mays wrote:
> adrian.bridgett@iname.com wrote:
> > On a related note, I think that the current way of building the
> > binary modules packages leaves alot to be desired.
> Ha!  Welcome to my world.  It's what I do all the time.
> > The best approach would be some auto-builder script which would
> > rebuild things as needed.  Any takers :-)
> I would be glad to help engineer such a thing.

This would be good.

Somewhat related are boot-floppies: base.tgz is based upon all the
packages in base, so should really be rebuilt whenever someone uploads
a new version of any packages in base.

I guess the process is something like:
	boot-floppies says "rebuild me if libc6/netbase/whatever gets updated"
	libc6/netbase/whatever gets updated
	autobuilder$ apt-get source -b boot-floppies
	autobuilder$ dupload *.changes

pcmcia-cs would ask for rebuilding if "kernel-image-.*" gets updated,
I guess (either a new package matching that pattern, or a new version of
an existing package matching it).

Hmmm. Working this into testing [0] might be tricky. Unless. I wonder if
the boot-floppies package could have exact versioned dependencies on each
of the various base packages (generated at compile time). That would,
I think, nicely stop any base packages from getting added to testing
until boot-floppies have been updated; and boot-floppies would be
"automatically" updated even if one of the base packages had a binary
only recompile with something like the above, so it shouldn't make for
any great delays. And most boot-floppies development is done with the
source package one would assume, rather than the boot-floppies.deb itself.


[0] http://ftp-master.debian.org/~ajt/

Anthony Towns <aj@humbug.org.au> <http://azure.humbug.org.au/~aj/>
I don't speak for anyone save myself. GPG signed mail preferred.

  ``We reject: kings, presidents, and voting.
                 We believe in: rough consensus and working code.''
                                      -- Dave Clark

Attachment: pgpQKb2AG9UDe.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Reply to: