On Sun, Mar 14, 2004 at 06:04:23PM +0100, Wouter Verhelst wrote: > On Sun, Mar 14, 2004 at 05:01:49PM +0100, Jeroen van Wolffelaar wrote: > > On Sun, Mar 14, 2004 at 02:31:49PM +0100, Wouter Verhelst wrote: > > > On Sun, Mar 14, 2004 at 07:40:05AM +0100, Petter Reinholdtsen wrote: > > > > Are you aware that the current build daemons do not build non-free > > > > packages automatically? I'm not sure when they stopped doing that, > > > > but it isn't done any more. So non-free need separate build daemons > > > > already. :) > > > > > > It's never _been_ done. What has been done is that some people built > > > non-free packages manually. There is no wanna-build database for > > > non-free, and there has never been one either; and it doesn't look as if > > > there will ever be one. > > > > I'm planning to set one up, though it ?sn't exactly at the top of my > > TODO list currently. Most tools are available, the current requirement > > on ssh I plan to drop > > There is no current requirement on ssh :-) > > (buildd has a "$ssh_cmd" variable, which it will prepend to any > wanna-build calls it wants to run. that can be anything, even empty, in > which case it'll run the commands locally). Ah, ok, but there is a dependency on a remote process call then, which might be useful to replace with, as a previous thread sort of concluded, a different TCP-capable protocol which does not involve the need to execute stuff on a remote host. > > (can maybe be merged into the free buildd infrastructure, especially > > since wanna-build isn't very security-critical, it's merely advisory). > > > > If someone else wants to help setting it up, or just doing it, please do > > contact me. > > Not me. I already kind of guessed that :) > You may be interested in knowing the reasons why non-free and contrib > aren't autobuilt: we don't know whether we're (legally) allowed to > actually do that. > > The only requirement for a package to be allowed in non-free is "Debian > must be allowed to distribute it". It does not include "you're allowed > to compile it on any random architecture", "everyone is allowed to use > it", "it must not be patent-encumbered", etcetera. For that reason, > you'd need a list of buildd machines with what non-free software they're > allowed to install and/or compile (based on who owns the machine, where > it is running, and the licenses of the non-free packages), and would > need to go through the list of non-free packages, reading all their > licenses, every time you would want to add a buildd. I'm fully aware of these issues, I merely have a general idea-of-implementation, which is currently whitelist-based, i.e. maintaining a set of relations buildd vs. licences that it may build packages for. > That's rather, uh, cumbersome. To say the least. It also happens to be > one of the reasons why I don't want to be involved in that can of worms, > even if I support the non-free part of our archives. Of course (as it hasn't been done yet), I do not know whether this turns out to be feasable. I think it is, but it could turn out to be not worth the effort. Time will learn. > > Also people on non-i386 archs who are willing to run a non-free buildd, > > please do mail. My personal guess is that on most architectures there > > must be someone willing to offer a non-free buildd, > > Perhaps; but it's quite likely that just one won't be enough if you want > to build everything. Possibly, again, let's see. As I said before, this little 'project' hasn't grown beyond the 'idea' stage yet, in other words, it's currently merely vapourware ;). Thank you for sharing your thoughts about it, --Jeroen -- Jeroen van Wolffelaar Jeroen@wolffelaar.nl (also for Jabber & MSN; ICQ: 33944357) http://Jeroen.A-Eskwadraat.nl
Attachment:
pgpr7ftrtje6r.pgp
Description: PGP signature