Re: mozilla.d.n (was: Bits from the Release Team - Kicking off Wheezy)
On Sat, Apr 30, 2011 at 02:18:06PM +0200, Andreas Barth wrote:
> * Mike Hommey (firstname.lastname@example.org) [110430 13:28]:
> > On Sat, Apr 30, 2011 at 01:06:57PM +0200, Andreas Barth wrote:
> > > * Mike Hommey (email@example.com) [110430 12:16]:
> > > > That being said, it would be really helpful to be able to get buildds
> > > > to build the mozilla.d.n packages...
> > >
> > > Would it work to build the packages in unstable? If so, why not
> > > uploading them to experimental and re-branding them in mozilla.d.n?
> > I'm not sure to understand what you are suggesting.
> The question is how could we get the packages built so that we don't
> need to setup yet another buildd suite (or more general, I want to
> avoid setting one suite per package). Of course, ppa would come to
> rescue here, and it's really only a question of "someone would need to
> write the code".
> I would propose the following for now:
> 1. For unstable users, upload the packages to experimental, and
> extract them from there once they are built.
> 2. For testing users, do the same (but only take the packages if they
> have dependencies fullfilable in testing)
> 3. For stable and oldstalbe users, upload the packages to bpo, and
> extract them from there.
> All that can (and should) be scripted of course.
Ah, so that's an hypothetical case, involving minimal changes to the
current buildd system. But it currently isn't possible.